Jesus was a Socialist
83Jesus was the very first Socialist. Got your attention with that statement, didn’t I?
Over the past several months, many of my more politically right friends and family members have grown quite bellicose during discussions about the current administration and in particular the current President. One of the most frequent slanders I have heard is, “Obama is a Socialist!” Well, as I have heard this label more than once applied to this President, to many Liberal Democrats, and to others myself included who believe there are better options than flat out capitalism I decided to look into the situation and determine for myself the following:
A) Is Obama really a Socialist?
B) Is Socialism an entirely bad economic framework?
C) What was the basis of Socialism, where did it start?
In the West, we have peculiar views of Socialism. In fact, all too often, we wrongly equate Socialism with Nazism, the Third Reich, and post WWII Russia Communism / Marxism, in truth many pundits, those talking heads where so much of our social views seem to be derived from have put horns, cloven hooves, and a tail on socialism and call it evil. Further, we wrongly connect Socialism with a political movement, which it is decidedly not. Consider the definition of Socialism, there are many however, for the purpose of this discussion I will use the following classic definition:
"Socialism". Oxford English Dictionary. "1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. 2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common."
I want to go a step further and identify the historically and generally accepted forms of socialism; I believe they are applicable. During my reading, I found many different theories, different standards, and applications. I was surprised to learn how far back the theory of Socialism went, the first writings of which were by Henri de Saint-Simon in 1823. What you say, nearly 200 years ago that can’t be right; nevertheless, it is indeed the truth Utopian Socialism emerged as a economic theory in the early 19th-century laying the groundwork for modern Socialist thought.
What I found in my reading were two distinct schools of thought:
The first is the Social Democrats; this theory proposes a mixed economy with the nationalization of key industry. Social Democrats promote private ownership of property, capital, and enterprise. What appears to be the differentiators in those nations where Social Democrats hold or have held sway is market-regulation and tax funded welfare programs.
The other school of thought is the Libertarian Socialist; this theory rejects all forms of state control and private ownership reverting instead to collective ownership of production and the economy. Decision-making done via councils or workplace democracy. The Libertarian Socialist movement is more closely aligned to the original Utopian view of Socialism, which espoused communal ownership and no private property or enterprise.
Now, having established the forms of Socialism as both economic and social theories it is time to examine why I believe Jesus was the first Socialist.
Jesus was the first Socialist, this isn’t really a question, but a statement of fact based upon the New Testament Bible. In fact I find it an interesting phenomenon that those who are most vocal in their rejection of social programs to assist the poor and displaced of our society are the very same who in most cases call themselves the “Moral Majority” and espouse Christian values as the basis of their political stance. Nevertheless, let me return to my proofs of why Jesus was the first Socialist, how I have arrived at this conclusion.
I am going to start with Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
So here, we have a very good example of Utopian Socialism in action with Jesus telling the wealthy young man the only way to follow him and gain heaven was to give away his great wealth to the poor, in other words redistribution of personal wealth to those with great need from those with great riches. Naturally, this must be very difficult for some to swallow, notice that the young mans face ‘fell’ when told he must give away his wealth to follow Jesus. Here though is our first proof, we must have no personal wealth beyond our needs; Socialism seems to be de rigueur.
Moving on to the next area that might prove my point and which certainly has a few feathers ruffling today; that of health care or in this case Jesus Healing those in need. He certainly didn’t seem to pay much attention to the conventions of the time, like oh say working on the Sabbath, which got him into a few bits of trouble with the powers that be. Nonetheless, heal he did without concern or consideration for pre-existing conditions or whose toes he was stepping on Jesus made his way through the land casting out demons, healing leprosy, epilepsy, and other dastardly illnesses that afflicted the people, he cared not a whit for whether a person was rich or poor, of the ruling class, or the most destitute beggar before the temple he healed them. The Pharisees, although the ruling class within the temple at the time and thus in control of wealth, law, and healing could not prevent him from teaching or healing, even on the Sabbath. There are many examples of this sprinkled throughout the New Testament, here are just a few:
Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 17:14
Mark 7:31, 8:22
John 9:51
Now to one of the best proofs and that is found in Matthew 25:31-46: The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. For those that don’t know this one the key statement is as follows:
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.
Finally, the teachings continued after the death of Jesus, the best example of the Utopian Socialism being the following by James found in 2:1-7:
1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
So now, we circle back around to my original questions; is the current President, Barack Obama a Socialist? I think the answer is that he is not any more a Socialist than any other American is, we simply have a difficult time recognizing ourselves or our economy for what it truly is. The fact is the current economic system has some aspects of Socialism including government regulation of certain industries, provisioning of health insurance for the elderly (Medicare), provisioning of care for the poor at a state level (Welfare, WIC, and Medicaid), taxing authority supported police, fire, and aid (911) are all examples of socialist programs. Each is generally found in countries with mixed economies, that is Socialism and Capitalism are both at work. Thus, my first conclusion Barack Obama is not a Socialist he is not even very far left of the middle; he is a Democrat and that is all he is.
The next question I asked is easily answered, is Socialism an entirely bad economic framework? The answer is yes, it is a bad framework as a stand-alone economy it is not possible to successfully manage a country in a pure Socialist economy. Nevertheless, the mixed economy of capitalism and Social Democracy is the appropriate and moral basis of a successful nation. This is true both from an economic standpoint and from the standard of ensuring all members of a society are able to their ability to be educated, work in relevant jobs, participate in government, and be cared for when necessary. Providing for the weakest members of society should be a given rather than a fight. Just as a purely Socialist economy is not sustainable neither is a purely Capitalist driven economy as we have ample proof of today in the United States.
So I say again, Jesus was the first Socialist. Perhaps all those who shout from their pulpits and their soapboxes about their moral right to gain riches on the backs and at the cost of others should check their premise. While they are pointing fingers and calling names, perhaps they should read the book they are standing upon, yes that would be the Bible they so readily reference usually incorrectly. During their ranting and ravings, their demand that the government “keep their hands off their Medicare”; perhaps it would serve them well to review the statements and teachings of the man who is the basis of their entire belief system, maybe this would help them.>
Obama is not a Socialist. Jesus however was the first Socialist.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (20)
- Funny
- Awesome (13)
- Beautiful (6)
- Interesting (5)
CommentsLoading...
Social programs are good but taking by force the hard work of individuals and spreading it out according to the whim of a few federal bureaucrats is not. Programs are fine unless the agenda goes against the first "socialist" Jesus. You know my friend, I was feeling like yelling when I was reading this hub, then you said stuff I agree with. Then I was back to yelling and you summed everything up with a "gee not bad" as my statement. I have to take exception to the conclusion you made about the rich man. You see I really think that he was worshipping that money of his. This money idol was going to get in the way of his getting into the kingdom of God. This is the problem I have with pure capitalism. If money is your god - capitalism builds a temple to it. If, however, like Job and Abraham and many others who had money, if it is not your God, then it is a useful tool to spread out their blessing to those around them. America can be a greedy place but I still feel it wrong to give so much power to a few people who will have the authority over so much. By virtue of social conscience their values are forced on the whole. Some of their goals are good. But the method and means I object to. Their are some clear leanings that seem to be behind the social programs that I can't agree with. Not many of us conservative Christians can. Like the pressure for abortions, green initiatives that are way beyond good stewardship of the planet. God told us to take care of the earth. Christians are supposed to be ecology-minded. But if I buy all this global warming stuff I have to believe that God is not in control of outcomes. We will have the planet uninhabitable in X number of years etc. I don't buy it and I think there is a lot of pressure to change us as America to a model that is way too radical to abide. Great hub. Thought provoking. God bless.
I always find interesting the idea of "taking by force" to fund social programs is only brought into play when it is programs that have an element that "conservatives" whether Christian or otherwise disagree with. Lets take Abortion, which in truth is simply one small component of a woman's right to make decisions about her health and reproductive well-being without interference or infringement on her privacy. No man has his privacy infringed upon when it comes to decisions of health or well-being, yet women it seems are not to be treated in the same and equal manner, whether they agree with the Christian standard or not. Health Care must be a right that all people enjoy and it must provide reproductive care, including safe abortion where requested by a woman. This is true whether you or I agree with abortion or not. Our agreement is not required only the woman's need is necessary. There is no pressure for abortion only recognition that it is a woman's right to end a pregnancy early at will or late where continuing the pregnancy places her life in jeopardy or there are issues with the fetus that are not compatible with life.
Interesting that when those same monies fund "defense" programs that are not compatible with life conservative Christians have no issue with monies being taken by force, same force by the way...taxes.
Here is my problem in all this, up until the mid 1960's the images of the Welfare recipient, were predominantly those of White families hearkening back to the dust bowl era, the War on Poverty up to 1965 focused on Whites. This country had no issue with the social programs that paid for their health care, for their aid. Starting in 1965 this image changed dramatically and so did the response by this nation to social programs including Welfare and Job Corps.
It is interesting to me, we as a nation are incensed with the idea that we will somehow lose something, that something will be taken by force from us to pay for social programs such as Single Payer Health Care. Yet, we have this today for our elder citizens and it works well. For those who have jobs and have benefits, well they are paying on average 16% for the privileged of those; yet we would pay less to cover the entire nation and be assured of coverage even when we might not be working.
Finally, whether you "buy" Global Warming or not; whether you buy Christianity fully or not. The lesson is you were given a mind to think, even God said he gave you free will and the ability to think. We are all responsible for the outcome. Do we leave those who are in need on the side of the road to perish for want? Do we ignore the signs and rely upon God to fix what is broken because we are to ignorant to manage our resources? Is that what is expected of us?
In theory, socialism works, but in practice it does not. Yes, people do equate Socialism with Nazism, the Third Reich, and post WWII Russia Communism / Marxism. Wonder why?? Because that's what socialism is - government control and everyone having the same regardless of their income or job.
Perhaps you should talk with people who have lived with socialism and see if they would agree with you.
Finally, you are taking scripture completely out of context - typical of people who want to try to prove their point.
HAve a good evening.
Actually, no that is not what socialism is that is what communism is and they are not the same thing. It is important that the two not be confused. Perhaps reading the definition of what socialism is and what the different theories of socialism are would assist in understanding them. As to speaking to people who have lived in Democratic Social countries, well we can go speak with Great Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, or any number of other European countries for their take.
I think prior to casting stones regarding my reading of the scripture, you will need to show my how I have done so. I believe my take on the scripture is right no target.
So Valentine what you saying Is that when a woman makes a decision she wants the abortion whether they like It or not the taxpayer has to foot the bill ? If her health Is endangered that Is one thing , but now It seems to be a form of birth control too .How do ya think Jesus feels about that one ?
I am saying that it is not anyone's business what a woman does. That abortion is a woman's decision and it is not up to you or I whether that is a choice she makes. We are not her moral judge. She is the only person who can determine whether abortion is the right ethical / moral decision for her at that time in her life, not you, not me, certainly not the government. Early termination of a pregnancy is a decision to be made by a woman and is between her and her medical provider, no one else.
Frankly I don't care how Jesus would feel, in fact I believe it was Jesus who said "Judge not lest you be judged", might want to keep that in mind. The entire country is not Christian and should not have to be forced to live within the strictures of those who are. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one!
Taxpayers foot the bill for Viagra. I think that is far more reprehensible.
What If the man wants the baby ?
Different discussion that whether or not Jesus was a Socialist isn't it? But for the sake of argument I am going to answer the question for you from my personal perspective.
I wish that men could bear children, then we would never have the issue as to whether women should have the right to personal privacy with regard to their reproductive health it would be guaranteed. As it stands today, men cannot and thus it is mote, men do not have the right to demand a women remain pregnant to give them the results of a pregnancy if they do not wish to do so. It is a rare thing Tony that a woman would not wish to carry a healthy pregnancy through to term where there was a willing partner in her corner though. Despite what you apparently believe it is a very rare thing today that a woman uses abortion as a form of birth control.
Now I will give you the flip side of my argument and one that is all to relevant in this age. I wish men could terminate their responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy and the resulting child early in the pregnancy so women would understand the full magnitude of their choice. I wish there were a way for a man to go before a court prior to the 9th week of pregnancy and say I don't wish to be a parent at this time of my life and I am therefore terminating all rights and responsibilities for this pregnancy and the resulting child. Now the woman has all the information she needs to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or not, knowing if she does she will be a single mother without the right to chase the guy into child support for the next 18 years.
I believe that men should have the same choice in this case. I don't believe men should be forced to parent simply because a women decides to continue a child that he is not prepared for and does not want. But as to forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy, nope sorry no man gets to make that choice.
Because men and women come from the womb there seems to be a segment of society here that is never considered. Siting the main example that is usually used of endangering the life of the mother or incompatability with life is frankly blurring the issue. You and I both know that abortion is a matter of convenience for the majority of instances. A woman may have the ability to have children but what of the responsibility of life? Has that potential man or woman been considered? Would you ever consider that living organism as having any rights at all? I don't think that most people on the other side of this issue do. And couple this with the statements I've heard recently about when newborns reach "personhood" I am hurting for the ending of the lives of humans. War and other things where the ending of life exists are separate issues and also a distraction tactic. That still doesn't take away the moral dilemma that a woman holds the responsibility to that life and is dodging responsibility holding to some right she has over another person of equal value. Aren't persons of equal value to you? I respect your right to believe these things but personally I find the beliefs reprehensible. I know you think my beliefs just as reprehensible for not giving mom the right in my mind but my poor lil ol brain can't seem to go there. I don't mean to be so narrow minded but it seems so clear to me, but I guess it doesn't to so many others. While we toss around these things abortion IS legal and many other "human organisms with the potential of personhood" are dying. My voice may not be eloquent but someone has to speak for these who have no voice for it is taken from them by force.
Let me say again this is not an abortion discussion nor do I wish it to turn into one. I am certain there are plenty of discussions on Hubpages that are about Abortion and a woman's right to privacy and reproductive health and decision making. Suffice it to say that statistics and medical science do not agree with the emotionalism of the anti-abortion believers. Those on this side of the argument rely upon religious dogma and emotional / reactionary definitions of life. They diminish women to incubators with no brains or value while holding the life of a embryo with no capacity to self-sustain, no brain function of greater value than that of a living breathing woman.
I happen to disagree, I happen to believe that the life of a woman has greater value and that her right to medical privacy is sacred and not to be infringed upon. I happen to believe that it is an infringement of her Constitutional rights of privacy as well as her right to Religious Freedom when others demand that she share her medical decisions or that she comply with their moral standards in her medical decisions.
In perspective: In the United States, nearly nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and 56% occur in the first eight weeks. ( Elam-Evans LD et al., Abortion surveillance—United States, 2000, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2003, Vol. 52, SS-12.) If you want to understand the development of a embryo at this stage I recommend visembyo.com which provides factual and visual development stages from fertilization to birth without judgment or emotionalism.
I completely disagree with you on the men have no right to have a say on a baby . There was 2 Involved and It should be a mutual decision. You are right , It has nothing to do with the topic , however It Is still As a legitimate question .
Your views throughout your hub and comments are completely megalomanaical
Really? You believe I am suffering from delusions of Grandeur? How so? Simply because I am a woman with an opinion? Or is it that you simply disagree with my opinions so felt the need to insult me personally in your departure?
It has nothing to do with opinion , It has to do with the fact that you could make a decision In such a cavalier fashion and have no regard for other people Involved . That Is called selfish . My son and my daughter In law were to have a baby that will have to be aborted because of a defect . A baby they wanted ! Now that Is one thing . However to merely use It as a form of birth control without the other party having a say In the matter strikes me as purely self absorbed ! And to expect every taxpayer to foot the bill for It whether they like It or not Is just plain wrong . And that has nothing to do with being judgemental, It Is just a fact .
I am sorry for your son and daugher-in-law.
Again, this is not a discussion of Abortion. That you wish to impose your opinion upon others is unfortunate and completely contrary to the values of this nation. That you have failed to read anything I have written except through the lens of your personal perspective is a common problem. There are many things that are paid for by tax dollars that others fundamentally disagree with based upon their own personal moral code, things such as the pursuit of Manifest Destiny. I find it reprehensible that Viagra is covered under Medicare, but it is. I find it reprehensible that you believe you have the right to stand in judgment and demand that every woman in this country follow your moral code whether they agree with it or not, yet you seem to think this somehow isn't self-absorbed. I have not stated my personal position on abortion only my position on a woman's right to medical privacy yet you have hammered me personally, insulted me personally, and presumed to judge me personally. I find that self-absorbed. You have not managed to read or comment on the Hub itself only taken your standard which appears to be women are to stupid to manage their own reproductive rights and embryos without brain function have more value than living breathing women; I find that self-absorbed.
So since this is my Hub no more of your self-absorbed comments will be allowed. How is that for Megalomania?
Sure he was a socialist - at least how he was portrayed in the bible. That's why we have a socialism outbreak all over traditionally christian countries. It will likely subside with the decline of christianity. :)
I really enjoyed reading this article, and thought that it was very well written. I am very glad that someone was able to intelligently discern the differences of what 'socialism' is. While I thoroughly disagree with your philosophical ideology, I respect someone who is honest about where they stand. Much respect. As for Jesus? I am a Christian, and am socially liberal, fiscally very conservative. I get irritated with people on the left or right who try to claim that Jesus was a socialist or captialist, or whatever. As I've often stated in Liberation Theology class that I taught, Jesus never invented the Catholic Church, or any denomination. People did. Jesus never created any political titles, people did. As for his deeds, socialistic? Sure. Capitalistic? Sure. For just as many examples that is given about helping the community and neighbor, could be given about self-accountability. In other words, one can still be a strong capitalist, and support the individual and community for the greater good. So? Jesus was a socialist. He was also a lot of other things. 'What would Jesus do?' He'd probably say, "Treat others as you would like to be treated."
Shazz thanks for you comments. Peter was the rock I believe but St Augustine the framework of the Catholic Church, just as an aside. Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with the formation of any organized religion in the Western world, those truth political movements used to control the population and had little to do with the teachings of The Christ.
What many likely cannot read into what I have written is the tongue in cheek factor. I am well aware of the fact that the Jesus of the original scriptures did not have a political or economic philosophy, beyond possibly his statement to render to Caesar (which I frequently use when talking to prisoners in the Victim Impact program where I speak).
My comparison of his philosophy to the more purist socialist stance is more to poke at those voices in our current media and political three ring circus who call themselves Christian while at the same time more closely practice Objectivism, or the philosophy of selfishness (Ayn Rand). Now quite honestly I am a big fan of Ayn Rand and see much in her writings that appeal to me, but there must be balance in any nation and we seem to have lost sight of that.
I personally take a very pragmatic view. My religious views are my own. I very rarely share them as they are not the business of any one else. My personal religious views certainly have no place in the political arena and I have no right to demand that others "buy" them through enacted laws that force others to behave in a manner that is objectionable to them. I have a very simple view of the world, chaos is avoided by enacting the least number of laws possible to do the greatest good. Any laws that cross over into the imposition of morality based on religious principals that are not agreed to by all they are intended to govern are bad laws and lead down a very rocky road, this is the way of the Taliban. Laws that protect your right to worship are perfect laws. Laws that demand I worship in the same manner are bad laws and should lead to acts of rebellion.
As I have said previously, I don't give a fig what Jesus would do. While a great teacher, so were others including Mohammad,Abram, Buddha; none of them belong in a political discussion none of them are central to the enactment of laws to better this nation. Their teachings and philosophies belong in the home, synagogue, mosques, temples, and other houses of worship. Their teachings direct your life as an individual, a father, son, husband; they do not direct the life of your neighbor unless he is in agreement with you 100%.
It is for this reason I write on some of the subjects that I write. It is for this reason I study the holy books, all of them; to gain an understanding of both the differences and the similarities. It is for this reason I open my ears and my mind, I believe I was given an intellect for a reason and it wasn't simply to waste on trivial pursuits. Do I poke the bear sometimes? I do, and I offend people with my thoughts and ideas, I know that. There are times I even do it knowingly because I want discourse and debate on important subjects. It is not intended to insult your beliefs or your values, that is not the intent believe me.
I appreciate your respectful response and your opinion.
Bravo! As a social democrat, I cannot see the possibility for either pure socialism or pure capitalism to really work in isolation. You must have really lit up the neo-coms and so called conservative christians. Although it must be difficult to read your hub with that plank in their eye!
James you are absolutely correct, neither in their pure form well work in isolation especially in the global economy that we must function in. There must be a balanced approach and it must take into account many different factors, including competition, cost allocation, management of scarce resources, and how to ensure the greater good of the nation as a whole. This is something many of those who are currently shouting they want the government to keep their hands off of their medicare fail to realize, those talking heads of both the right and the left are not seeking the best solution for the nation just the most expedient for themselves. We the people must be looking beyond this to the future of our children and what is right long term not simply what is right now. What constantly amazes me is the shortsightedness of some people...ah well that is a Hub for another day.
Calling Jesus a socialist isn't a new twist and it is not a true statement.
It was a spiritual matter of not putting anything above following Jesus. The young man was too attached to his riches. That was the point that Jesus made.
That is an opinion, just as mine is an opinion. Both have equal validity. I understand that mine is not a unique opinion I have simply put it into terms based upon my understanding of what true Socialism is and how the teachings of Jesus reconciles to them.
My point is that in the US there are many today who demand I accept their religion as a standard. That I accept their views on God as the standard for the nation. That I accept their perspective and in fact that I bow down to their interpretation of Jesus and Christianity as the only valid one. In so doing they have warped beyond recognition the intent of the founding fathers of this nation and the Constitution that is supposed to guide it. Further, those who are so rabidly pointing fingers and naming the Democrats Socialists, as if they were the next thing to the Devil, barely know what a Socialist is or the difference between a socialist and a Communist.
So in fact were Jesus alive today and based upon his teachings, what do you believe he would have been?
By the way, no it wasn't a spiritual matter it was a real demand for his followers to set aside their worldly goods. The point was that they could not follow to masters....the attainment of wealth and the attainment of spiritual fulfillment. Specifically he said; It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the gates of heaven.
But he didn't say a rich man can't enter the gates. Exactly, the following of a master is a spiritual matter, as Jesus wanted them to follow him in spirit and truth.
It was the young man's love of money that kept him from following Jesus.
Of course, so far, this is still America, and we all have a right to our opinions.
Thanks for commenting back.
Well done! Loads of posts. Your first sentence says it all.
Believe me, you wouldn't like Socialism if you lived in UK at the moment. Taxes at 50% of income. Hand-outs to everyone from MPs to dole people. We spend more on the dole (and supplementary benefits) than we collect in income tax. Meanwhile, we are lectured about smoking, fox hunting and global warming. Even the Pubs are closing! We have, in places, well over half our workforce out of work.
Jesus was not a capitalist although he mixed with several very rich people and was even buried by one. (Joseph of Arimathea). Jesus was not a Socialist because he lived even before Saint Simon and Lenin and Mr Brown.
His message was "Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all things shall be opened unto you."
Not "Workers of the World Unite!" or "Fair shares for all".
I write this as a Catholic who was once a Protestant.
I am actually not making a commentary one way or the other, regarding the right or wrong of Socialism. Only the comparative behavior and mudslinging of the current US political talking heads and their misuse of terminology.
In all frankness most nations are Democratic Socialistic to one degree or another, they just don't name themselves as such. There must be social services provided and there must be some degree of regulation undertaken or the nation and the economy comes to a screeching halt; just has it has done in so much of the world.
In fact Jesus was free of politics to the degree that he could be for his time. However, as with all great leaders and certainly with those of his stature his message has been used for political gain ever since. It is with this in mind that I wrote this.
If we could just get rid of labels and just communicate what works well for all of us. Everything is interconnected. We leave segment of the population poorly educated, we all suffer. Thus "socialist" becomes a scare word. It becomes the boogie man not to pass a health care reform that the whole country needs not only health wise but to keep the economy afloat. Another boogie word is abortion. It is almost incomprehensible to me people are giving abortion as one of the reasons not to pass health care. As if women are aborting children left and right. The cost of abortion will be minimal if not negligible relatively speaking. As for not wanting to subsidize it because of religion or morality well the constitution has separated state and religion. Even if we out law abortion tomorrow guess what we will still be paying for it dearly, as young girls desperately go out and get cheap, illegal and unsafe abortions from unqualified heath workers and then end up in our emergency rooms. Yea every thing is interconnected. So we think we should live those lazy poor people uninsured because they don't deserve it guess what again we pay for them dearly already when they ultimately end up in our emergency rooms after years of medical neglect. Haven't you heard the U.S. spends the highest on heath care among all the developed nation including China and Taiwan and has the list effective health system. Where were the Christian right when Bush started the illegal and immoral war in Iraq .Millions of Iraqis died and are still dying and of courses everybody knows about the thousands our young solders loosing their lives. I sure didn't want my tax dollars paying for that. So Valentine was Jesus a socialist? I don't care about labels is the answer. But he definitely seems to see the interconnectedness of things, when he said " Whatever you did not do for the least of these you did not do for me....etc."
lelane you pulled my favorite quote out and it is interesting of all the people who have comment, you are the only one who recognize that one as the most important of the quotes I pulled. It is also one of my favorites.
I like many of the Founding Fathers am a Deist. My ethics and morals are structured in a very clear standard and have little to do with moralistic pulpit pounding. I do not demand others do as I do or believe as I believe; only that they allow me to live my life without interference so long as I am living my life lawfully and am doing no harm. I do not encourage discussions where the faith a component of the argument because it is impossible to debate "faith", you either believe or you do not. I would fight to the death for a persons right to worship and believe, so long as this right did not include demanding my worship or belief as well.
A secular government is paramount. A government based on logical laws that prevent anarchy is critical. Avoidance of any form of religious laws as part of our government is an important part of our continued well-being as a nation and a people. We do not want to be mired in theocratic nonsense as it would not represent who we are as a people or who we were intended to be as a nation.
Discussions of abortion are ridiculous as they are not logical, scientifically or medically based in fact. They are emotionally based and thus foolish. Those that oppose abortion do so based on religious principles that do not apply to everyone and are thus irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It is why I try hard not to have those discussions with anyone who refused to bring relevant and medically sound debatable facts to the table.
The health care discussion is shameful today. The real problem is though that the people who are opposed to it have the money to send a message of fear the the populace that it being bought into. Those who should support it have a history of voting against their best interest and those who represent them do not have the nations best interest at hand.
The truth of the matter is that we should be taking this one step further. Where this really must start is with Education. It should be EDUCATION for all. Free and perfect; consistent no matter where you live or what you tax bracket is. Whether you live in a wealthy suburb or a poor inner city. If every child were educated in exactly the same manner with exactly the same resources through grade 14, not 12; as a nation we might stand a chance.
Great Hub and thanks for the discussion.
I do find it interesting that people of the Christian right always shout about people quoting the Bible "out of context" when the quote seems to go against their particular view. Where were they, as lelane asks, when Bush and Company led your great country into an illegal and immoral war, which has cost the US dearly and caused untold misery to millions, on the basis of a lie. A lie that most of the rest of the world knew was a lie. A lie which is now causing huge problems to the current president who, I agree with you, cannot be described as a socialist any more than Nixon could be.
Glad also that you made the point about the difference between socialism and communism. An important point that many overlook.
BTW the most nationalist and socialist country at the moment is, ironically, Israel, the country so beloved of the Christian right. And we know what happens when nationalism and socialism get put together, don't we?
Love and peace
Tony
By labeling Jesus, you have stuffed Him into a box and are trying to keep Him buried. But He rose, you see, so your anaolgy doesn't work.
Anyone can read their beliefs into whatever they read, but that doesn't mean those things are really there. Edgar Cayce used to say that he could read reincarnation into the Bible just as easily as he could read it out of the Bible. So if he wanted to see Jesus as promoting reincarnation, he could, or he could see where Jesus did not promote the idea of reincarnation.
Apparently, you enjoy some tenets of socialism or else you wouldn't have written this post. But I don't see anywhere in history that a 'distribution of wealth' has been anything other than a way for a few elite to amass great fortunes while leaving the majority either destitute or on its verge.
Look at any union and you will see the bosses enjoying the fruits of the workers' labors while the laborers themselves live poorly comparatively.
Except, of course, in Jesus' case.
But Jesus didn't want anything. He was already complete. And His real message was that wholeness comes not from something outside one's self, but, as He said, from within.
"The Kingdom of God is within you."
Your opinion piece is rather parochial.
I also find it rather distasteful that you would compare who many belive to be the true Messiah to the fake messiah. The two couldn't be futher apart in content, ideology, or character.
Jesus' entire purpose was to open our eyes to God. Obama's entire purpose it to centralize as much power to himself as he possibly can.
Another point I would like to add, the Founding Fathers set up a Republic, not a socialist regime. They did not set up a government that was meant to determine how we should live. And they did not set up the government to be a charitable institution. That's what we have the wealthy for. It is their task to work with the poor, much like what Bill Gates does with his charitable organization. For those wealthy who are not charitable, such as the Obamas, then let God be the judge.
Deltachord was correct in her assessment - the young man thought he would have to give up his money, but that is not what Jesus was really saying. That man believed he was his wealth, and that without it he would be nothing. But he wasn't his money, he wasn't his status, and had he truly listened to Jesus, he would have known that he could keep his money and follow, too. Money is not evil, it's the lust for it that is.
Socialism can only work when one chooses to live that way, as the nuns in a convent do. But when you force a people to abide by what a few elite prescibe, there will be huge upheavels. Then you will have to do what Stalin did, and kill hundreds of thousands of your own countrymen.
Your abortion statement I also find a bit skewed. People have a right to determine how their taxes are spent. I would not like my taxes wasted on an abortion. If a woman is really so concerned about her body, she would be very careful not to get herself pregnant - unless of course she's raped, but I don't believe the discussion was that specific. Yes, a woman has the right to determine what happens to her body, but she does not have the right to other people's money to get her out of her ill-conceived jam.
Obama wants it all for himself, Jesus wanted us to want God above all else.
Huge difference.
Well Stillman although you spent some time standing on a soapbox and another bit of a time casually insulting me I will allow your rant to stand. The reason, everyone has a right to an opinion.
Nice Hub- I thought I would add a little to your original discussion (about Jesus). There are a few other passages that may weigh on this subject:
Acts 2:42-47
Describing The Fellowship of the Believers
"They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved".
The Believers Share Their Possessions
Acts 4:32-35
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world".
Hebrews 13}5
"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you".
Matthew 23:25
""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence".
Luke 12:15
"Then he said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions' ".
I Peter 5:2
To God's Ministers
"Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve"
Jesus was very much in favor of people sharing with those who were in need!He also has much to say about greed and "love" of money (not money, but the LOVE of it).
As a Christian, I want to say how sorry I am that we miserably fail so often to live according to the grace that is within us.
We, of all people on earth, should be the most generous, kind, loving, truthful people of all. We really are without excuse for God's spirit, who resides in us, and has transformed us, should be the prevailing force in our lives!
And so our very lives prove the following to be true:
Romans 7:21-25
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
I greatly appreciate your HUB and pointing out that we who name the name of Christ have no defense for greed. Whatever political system we live under, our job is to be "salt and light" in the world. To be the good Samaritans. To offer love from a heart of love to our neighbor.
John 15:12- My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
Romans 13:10-
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law
So you see, we who name the name of Christ are without excuse. Sadly, the most vocal people who call themselves "christian" are often the ones who get the most media attention, and are the ones who display Christ the least. They are more like the Pharisees-
II Peter 2:18-
"For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error".
Yes Valentine you are correct when you say- Jesus believed in sharing what you have with others who don't have.
Sadly, this is not an issue that can be effectively legislated for it comes from within, from a heart of concern for others. Our best hope in the world is to have laws that protect and equalize the playing field, for the law of the land will never change a heart. Only Christ can do that.
Again- I am appreciative that you call attention to how Christians can better "walk the talk"!
God Bless you
Thanks, those are great by the way!
Which was really my only point. But boy did I make some people mad, which I expected.
One who was instrumental in forming a religion should not be linked with politically motivated things. Organising a religion is very much greater than socialism.
Venugopal I don't believe that is the case. The Christian movement has been linked to politics since its inception. For good or ill Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in particular have been the driving force behind the rise and fall of nations, kings and queens, political movements, wars, legislation, and far to many other things to mention here. The reality is that for the past two thousand years the three primary religions of the world have been pivotal in most of the very worst that humanity has to offer each other, this is true both historically and in present day.
It's such a fine balance isn't it? as a Christian, I am inclined to get involved in politics because I feel it is my responsibility as a good citizen. At the same time, however, many of the causes that arise in the name of Christianity, don't reflect the heart of it.
James 4:2
"You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God".
Humans take matters into their own hands, driven by their own desires and then give it a "noble" sounding label. What many people (even some who claim to be christians) don't realize is this: our true power comes in serving others.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
The message we proclaim--the cross-- was the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus- he served in life and in death and was risen by that same power. The sad truth--we who proclaim this message often don't fully believe in it.
Instead, we covet something (as it says above in James) and then we go after it to conquer or take it by force or trickery. It may be another country, or it may simply be the desire for another person's spouse or car. We steal what doesn't belong to us, destroying lives in the process either physically or emotionally.
Of course this is true of all humans, but not everyone in humanity claims God's words as their belief. I am mortified at what is and has been done under the banner of God.
Alas, it is what gets highlighted (there is a lot of good too). It is again, human nature. We love disaster. We crave gossip (look at all the magazines on the racks). We enjoy being a voyeur--"a fascinated observer of distressing, sordid, or scandalous events" (reality TV). We hunger for blood shed (WWF??) and call it entertainment. Humans crave what Christians define as evil. Humans cause evil and claim it in the name of Christianity and God.
It really gets very muddy and mixed up.
John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
The thief here is evil and "I" is Jesus. We who name the name of Christ would do well to realize when we act in the manner of what we call "evil", we are no longer serving man or God, but another master. And by doing this, it is not our name that is profaned, but God's. If we truly believe in God, we would do well to give this serious thought.
Great discussion Valentine!
I enjoyed your article and I agree that Jesus and a sizeable amount of his teachings stress the well being of the collective and the uplifting of the poor. But to get the true essence of what he's talking about, we need a much broader definition of what Jesus meant when he referred to the poor. Poor or rich never simply dealt with how much money a person had. So our narrowly defined categories of "Socialist" or "Capitalist" can never be applied to the annointed Christ. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all rich. They traded in lands, livestock and produce so one could view them as strict capitalists. The nation that they fathered had a strict system for how "Industry" was to govern its taking of profit. In Levitical Law, the year of Jubilee was observed by all chiefs of industry. This system allowed the "Capitalist" 6 years of profit taking but the 7th year was the year in which indentured servants (employees) were raised up by the industry that they served over the last six years. This is by definition a Socialist concept. So, the capitalist SHOULD always fund the socialist agenda with the God defined reason that no man should be forced into servitude for more than 6 years. I discuss this in my book "Recessionproof" (http://www.ourrecessionprooflife.com). Jesus the Christ was God in flesh. He intended us to be abundant and to honor his law and systems so that all men would have an opportunity to experience the Kingdom on this earth. Our systems of capitalism or socialism will all fall short if we don't first honor God's word.
I hope that most understand that my article was to a point intended as tongue in cheek. It was in direct response to the many who direct their talking points at name calling and fear mongering while at the same time standing on the Bible.
I do not now or ever intend to compare Jesus or any other religious leader fully to the political or economic structures of today. While many Biblical teachings are most certainly noteworthy in our current discussions around health care especially, it is important to realize also that there are several other vital issues.
'My point is that in the US there are many today who demand I accept their religion as a standard. That I accept their views on God as the standard for the nation. That I accept their perspective and in fact that I bow down to their interpretation of Jesus and Christianity as the only valid one.'
Amen to that! All the judgemental comments this Hub has drawn has taught me one powerful lesson today - I don't want to ever be like those who wrote them. Seems Christianity is the most divided religion in the world and every one of the denominations is 'right'. WWJD if he was walking the Earth today? Shake his head in dismay probably.
Yes Kathy you are right. But then most who stand on soapboxes stand on extremely unstable stages. I knew when I posted this it would draw ire. I publish in a couple of different places and anytime I publish controversial subject matters this is the result. But you either accept that this is will be the result and stick to your guns or you put on your fuzzy sheep skin and meander slowly with the pack. You see what my choice is.
Jesus never addressed or told the Roman Government it was their duty to help and support the poor.
All His teachings were of a personal nature.
Jesus never ever took anything from anyone to give it to someone else. Jesus was never a political advocate of anything. Socialism has its roots in elitism and politics. This isn't what Jesus was about.
Jesus taught unselfishness - not socialism.
I find it ironic...
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. for I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."
As those on the left today like the Al Gore's and Joe Biden's give very little. This is well documented.
Joe
I think it is really important that a person read an entire article prior to responding. In this way the response adds to the discussion in a relevant way.
Socialism is both a economic and social philosophy; just as capitalism is. If instead of reading the first line of the article you had read the entire thing you would have noted that I quoted, correctly and in its entirety Matthew 25:31-46, the Parable of the Goat and the Sheep, this is the same quote that you half provided.
I do not point fingers, but am able if you like. This is not about who gives more or less. This is about the issue of whether those who name our current administration and specifically our current President a Socialist are accurate in their name calling, they are not.
As to whether The Christ addressed the Romans he did that only one time, upon his sentencing. He did however address the ruling class of the Jewish people many times and took them to task, this was a far more important issue for the times he lived in.
Charity is a personal issue and one that is neither right nor left. I care not a whit whether Al Gore and Joe Biden give away their personal money. Their behavior is their own, just as your and mine are ours to contend with ultimately. The issues of the day are greater than whether a single individual gives 1% or 10% of their personal wealth to charity. The issue is whether we are a nation that will see our people starving and homeless on the street and willfully turn our backs. The issue is whether we are a nation that will see our people dying for lack of proper access to health care and willfully turn our backs on them. These are the issues of the day, whether we are a nation and a people that care more for the profits of the few individuals and the corporations or the greater ability of the many to participate in the promise of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
That is at the end the true question we must all ask. I do not promote socialism. I do however promote a more efficient and effective democracy. One in which we are assured equality of opportunity for all American Citizens and one in which all American Citizens have access to education, health care, housing, food; the basics of life.
There is no "we as a nation" until we all accept our own personal responsibility. The real issue is people turn their backs on themselves.
The true question is "When will I be responsible for my own actions?"
You are mistaken. We live in a republic. Democracy takes place in a boardroom (capitalism in its purest form). It may seem trivial but there is a difference.
Philosophy is the study of problems. Socialism is not a study of anything. Socialism is a form of government used to control economic conditions by sharing the wealth not by charity but by force. Perhaps it is just a coincidence the leaders are the wealthiest.
I read the article and it is rather good. But my answer is Jesus was nowhere near a socialist and Obama is probably worst than FDR. Just look at the people he associates with.
It's a no brainer. Government never does anything right!
Just some my thoughts on subject...yeah I can be blunt but that's me.
Have a great evening.
Oh, I don't mind blunt. I can be quite to the point myself.
Actually we live in a designed Democratic Republic, specifically. We also live in a Social Democracy, also designed. It is neither a purely capitalistic nor a purely socialist economic market. Neither by the way are only economic theory but are also social theory.
I don't disagree with one statement, that is the government doesn't do anything right. The problem is that it is us, that is right it is "we the people" that are the government and that allow the travesty of this government to continue too act in no ones best interest but its own. Were 'we the people' to take a greater interest in who we elect to office rather than simply putting the same criminals in office time after time some of this would resolve itself.
Personal responsibility is all well and good. I am a big fan of Ayn Rand myself. In fact have no real issue with profit nor in individuals being paid for the value of their labor. What I take issue with is when those same individuals do so while causing harm to others. This is the case with health care and the private insurance market. As well as with the financial and banking industries; and in great part in the IT and Engineering segments with the greater and greater expansion of the "temporary worker" program to drive out the American worker in favor of cheap overseas labor.
Medicare is in fact something the government did do right. Whatever you might think, it works for millions of Americans. Extending this system to the rest of Americans is the right answer. Single Payer insurance is the right answer.
There isn't a single civilized country in the world today that doesn't provide health care for their citizens. They aren't all perfect, but most of them are better than what we have. I have seen many of them up close and personal having lived in several other countries and at least there I wouldn't be bankrupt by a visit to the hospital.
I have worked for all of my adult life. I don't make a bad living and can't complain. But 19 years ago I was carjacked and shot three times leaving me with long-term injuries (pre-existing conditions). I am uninsurable. It isn't about bad decisions I made but it is about private insurance companies who have decided that my life has no value, that is the message.
So you can't really talk to me about personal responsibility every year my medications cost me over $10,000. Every year my medical bills top $30,000 and that is if I don't spend any time in the hospital or don't need surgery. I am self-employed and my husband's insurance excluded all pre-existing conditions from coverage which is common these days, so we pay $400 per month for insurance on top of those expenses above.
Every person who loses their job is uninsured and if they have a family that family is without insurance. 76% of all personal bankruptcy is due to a catastrophic illness and health care bills that are out of control.
Americans in the Technology and Engineering fields are out of work and facing 6 month job searches and underemployment, meanwhile the H1B program, L1 and B1 Visas are being expanded and technology and engineering jobs are being filled by immigrants from India and China at 1/3 the salary of the US counter-part.
Shall I continue? It isn't always about personal responsibility. Many people have always taken personal responsibility, this is the buzz word these days from the right and it isn't addressing the entire problem.
Well lets agree to disagree.
I made great money now I make only about one third. I don't blame anyone. I was uninsured too with a family a couple of times. I just picked myself up and got employed again. It wasn't easy with 30 years under my belt to prove myself again.
I had friends get shot and I grew up in a neighborhood that went from very good to very bad. Recognizing a developing situation by being aware of my surroundings kept me safe. No one could do that for me. Only me.
There are people who have had it much harder than you or I. They are are the pinnacle of responsibility. They just make it work. They are like rocks and I admire and hope should I need it, be just like them.
To ask another to take on the the added responsibility of another is wrong and cannot be done. The best that can be done is temporary help. There is a huge difference between the two.
Fact is that there is only a very small number of people who cannot help themselves. These people should and deserve to be take care of. But most just want a free handout and when they get it they want more and become more dependent. That does not help anyone.
I am sorry to hear about your plight but that doesn't change reality one iota. You, as I, as everyone else are responsible for their own actions and life. That's how life works.
What are we going to do when medicare totally fails in five years? No government didn't do that right either.
Remember this when it happens. Our money is worth nothing, unemployment is at about 18% (they don't count everyone), and in order recover from our economic crises things need to get back to where they were.
It is not happening and the 18% number is depression territory. The primary mortgage market is now failing and banks are failing every day. The stock market can't even get close to where is was.
China and Japan have stopped buying our debt. The Fed continues to print money to buy our own debt - that is a fact. You get the info under the freedom of information act.
The US is going bankrupt as tax dollars dwindle. All of Europe is failing thanks to health care, green energy, and socialist programs.
We need not worry about medicare because we are going into a depression that will make the '30s look like a holiday.
And no politician will stand up and do the right thing.
Health care is not the only thing out of control. And if you do some hard honest research the money trail goes from corporations to Washington and from Washington to corporation at all levels of government.
America needs to wake up now or it is going to get pretty ugly. The ramifications are life changing.
Just what I see based on history and what's happening now. But remember I told you so:)
Personal responsibility will become more than a fad. It will become the staple of life. Just ask those living in tent cities now.
Seriously, I wish you and yours the best.
Great hub, very well written. Funny how people come along and say you're wrong because they've been told that one of the biblical passages you refer to means something else, and yet never mention your other biblical references. Not to mention your secular points.
You handle yourself with grace in the face of it all as well, and I admire you for that.
Great job, and keep talking.
Jesus is Liberal.
God gave us the ten commandments which is the original rule of law, subservient to no other law, and it states, "thou shall not steal". When government takes my production and gives to the non-productive, under threat of fine and jail, this is stealing, plain and simple. Whether Jesus was a socialist or not does not matter. His father sent us the rules to live by and Jesus himself is subservient to those rules.
As for """But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.""" This is not a statement of wealth denying entry to the kingdom of God in heaven yet a statement merely saying that wealth is not bad, greed is bad. Most wealthy are derived of greed. Money is not the root of all evil...love and worship of money is the root of all evil. As Margaret Thatcher said, Socialism works fine until you run out of other peoples money. Theory and actuality performance are two different things. Socialism has been done to death throughout history and has never worked. Obama IS a socialist with his distribute the wealth ideas and he is flogging a dead horse. Without competition and meritocracy, societies flounder. Again, read your history.
Nice hub though that gets the debate going. This adds spice to life as long as people debate intelligently and respectfully.
No need to read my history. I actually stated quite clearly that any society that adopted a pure socialistic economy would fail.
I fundamentally disagree with you that Obama is a Socialist, he is not. He is a Centerist within the Democrat party. He is not even terribly Liberal or progressive.
The 10 Commandments are only part of the Law, the Law is encompassed in its entirety in three books; Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus. All the Laws are applicable, not just the Ten.
Taxation is not stealing. There is a fine line, I would agree with that; nevertheless, taxation is not theft. Your or mine disagreement with how our tax dollars are allocated is addressed through our active participation in government. This means our voice is heard by casting our vote, being involved in action committees, writing to our government officials, taking an active role in our communities.
You and I likely agree there is a fine line between being a welfare state and being a humane state, that line should be drawn and defined. Is the man who worked all his life, paying his bills, raising a family non-productive because the plant he worked for for 25 years shut down without notice and sold all their assets to China? What does he do now? He likely still needs to work for another 15 years, maybe more before he reaches retirement age but unfortunately his skills are no longer needed in the marketplace.
What about the woman who stayed home to raise her children, one of whom is disabled while her husband worked, now her husband has passed away in a foreign battle field serving his country, he was a reservist. His life insurance won't pay out because there was a clause that defers risk such as the armed forces. His insurance through the military is $25,000, that is it. She still has two small children. She can't get insurance for her disabled child, not even through an employer. With the death of her husband she has no coverage through the military. Is she non-productive?
I could go on, these are people I know. My story is up above. I also am not non-productive. It is a fine line.
I don't want to see re-distribution of wealth. I do want to see a nation that is concerned with the well-being of its citizens so they are able to be productive and competitive at a global level. I want to stop the bleed of our tax dollars in to the hands of Wall Street, the Defense Industry, and Corporate CEO's where it isn't needed and doesn't belong.
I want to see a competitive education system. I want to see available and affordable health care. I want to see jobs available to Americans. I want to see "Made In America" on labels at competitive pricing. I want to see welfare be a work program not a gimme program with a definitive goal of giving people real skills and a end date.
What Would Jesus Do? Slap you silly.
Really? Probably not since he was a pacifist. But continue to apply your own personal violent standard to his teachings as you wish. This is what most modern "Christians" do and why most will have to answer for their behavior eventually.
Call yourself a Christian? Suggest you learn the meaning.
Valentine - this is a brave and fairly written hub. I have not read all of the comments, but enough to see that you are being given the bullying treatment that always results from offending certain groups. But I see that you can hold your own, and that with dignity. Well done :)
I think you missed the Jesus was a socialist bit. I keep finding that socialist think what Jesus did is socialism, where I believe it is just the opposite.
Socialist force by laws. Jesus ask and set example.
In socialism, production is lost along with creativity, With Jesus, people want to do the best and then share with with the less fortunate. \
So with just these two examples I see Jesus's ways are actually opposite to socialism. Satan is the one that wants to force and take away freedom. The socialism concepts closer simulates Satan's plan.
I can give a lot examples if needed.
Keep on hubbing!
Nationalization of industry is just one step toward fascism and yes Jesus was the first one to live off the land so to speak; the young man who wanted to follow him was young and single too, like Jesus, but money was his god. Jesus was fed by others as he taught and preached, he was working as the Son of God.
Paul also said to work in our communities and be a witness in our lives. Personally I am going to work as a capitalist and live and give as a witness in my community. I think that is great if you can give everything away and work full time as a witness, but I am going to keep my money, so that my taxes will have to pay for you and what is left over I will feed my large family and if I can save anything for retirement it will be meager that is because I couldn't save more over my life because of Government mismanagement of our tax dollar. If you will notice all of the government run agency's such as welfare, medicare are bankrupt and I sure don't want government run health care insurance If you read our United States Constitution you will read where it says we have the RIGHT to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. I didn't see any guarantees in there like free health care, free food or free anything, but you could pursue those things by working for them. Those that are old ,children or sick we help by using responsible industry outside of government to run these projects and have external watchdogs in place to audit their books, Everyone else can just stop whining and work for a living. Even the Apostles had to do some form of work, if you remember My Jesus was a carpenter and I know He worked.
Paraglider - thank you. Yes I find that people grow very offended with some of what I have to say. Often without ever reading the entire Hub. It is unfortunate really. I think if they actually took the time to read it without the filter of their personal feelings and belief systems they might find something of value and their replies might be less pugnacious.
Eovery - your definition of Socialism is inaccurate thus cannot be responded to effectively.
I think what you are saying is that with Christianity people want to do their best and then share. I find just the opposite. I don't find most "Christians" sharing what they have with those less fortunate. In fact I look around and find most working hard to keep what they have and damn those less fortunate.
From your first statement I can only assume you believe I am a socialist. Which can only lead me to believe that you did not fully read my Hub, had you done so this would not have been your conclusion.
ShrikeTexas
You may do anything you wish and believe anything you wish. Including believing that it is appropriate to witness without giving. The fact of the matter is that your taxes, as meager as they might be already pay for social programs including education, emergency response (fire, police, 911) as examples. I have read the Constitution many times and fully understand the meaning of those words. I also understand that we, the people of this country, have an obligation to ensure that all members have access to Education, Health Care, access to jobs, access to credit within their means, ability to put a roof over the head of their family within their means.
Today we don’t have these things. Today our jobs have been off shored and those that have not been sent off-shore have been given away to the lowest cost provider through the import of cheap labor. While millions of Americans are out of work hundreds of thousands of imports from India, China, and the Philippines are brought in to replace them. Capitalism is fine, in fact Capitalism is the right economic model overall. Nevertheless, all members of society must be able to participate or it does not work. There is a part of the current government who supports the continuation of programs that will allow expansion of programs that import labor and further deregulate industry and banking.
The government cannot be blamed for mismanagement. The government is in place because the people put them in place. The people cast their vote and allow them to mismanage without being held accountable. The wars are fought, billions spent and thousands of lives lost and for what other than a lie, just one example. The state run agencies are generally bankrupt due to poor tax revenues which are in part based upon property values within a state and in part based upon income tax collections. If you will consider those states with the worst collections you will note that these states are those with the highest unemployment rates and thus the states with the most dire problems, most people in need, most properties in foreclosure, and the list goes on. The federal programs are not bankrupt, this information can be easily looked up and you should not rely upon Fox News for your information regarding Medicare and Social Security.
Overall, your judgment of whether you will be paying for me with your taxes? Not likely. I have paid for myself since I was 15. I will continue to do so, my taxes are more than sufficient, my tax bill plenty high enough, my social security maxed out every year. It is likely that my earnings will continue to enable me to live well and save for retirement. As a small business owner I also employee others not just myself. I am more than capable of understanding the issues at hand.
Unlike so many who claim Christianity, I make a real effort not to judge others. But please continue to feel free to do so, it should go over well when you eventually meet YOUR Jesus.
This is a well written piece. I agree with little of what you have to say, but enjoyed reading it.
I will reiterate since you twisted what I said: "Paul also said to work in our communities and be a witness in our lives. Personally I am going to work as a capitalist and live and (give) as a witness in my community.That is what I wrote; you just missed it. Other than that, for one so well written I am surprised that you place such a high opinion or trust in the people we place in office it won't be the first time we have been duped by the politicians of this great nation. Look at what the last administration did to us, we are bankrupt from a misbegotten war and fear mongered the American people out of more of our constitutional rights.If you remember I stated those that are old ,children or sick we help by using responsible industry outside of government to run these projects and have external watchdogs in place to audit their books, your disagreement with me is your desire for big government in all their ineptness to continue running programs into the ground. I believe we place companies in place with excellent track records to organize and run these programs with open books that are audited by "intelligent" government agencies and you would end graft, government waste thus tax dollars saved. I too believe companies should be regulated in moving factories to other countries and I also believe unions have helped in some of this mire. As an Artist I see my friends losing their jobs to designers overseas and I find it very disheartening, but you are talking about putting more tax money in the hands of government ineptness, not my money. Have you read the health care bill ? You should, it has some chilling facts that even you don't want. I think that is great that you make so much money your tax dollars will probably be taking care of me when I am too old to work. I feel like the poor man kicked to the bak of the church you referred to so humbly As far as being judgmental we all have to look in the mirror everyday and your barbs are unwarranted, just because your political views are for a social democratic Fascist society with a with a touch of capitalism if you are lucky.
Shriketexas -
Show me a responsible industry that you would like to give your money to so they can deny you a necessary medical procedure. Perhaps you should read some of the comments above and my response to them. I believe there are areas that cannot be put in the hands of for profit industry, this includes healthcare insurance. I also do not think the current Bills being proposed are the right bills and hope they do not pass, nevertheless Medicare for All is the right standard, increased tax for a Single Payer system that insures all members of society and provides for healthcare services for all members regardless of pre-existing conditions is the right answer.
You and I don't disagree on some issues, including the fact that past administrations have been bad. We also don't disagree that big government is bad. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that all government is bad or that government should not step into certain and specific social programs to provide for specific services and ensure those services are available to all members of society.
You have simply repeated what I said about the wars of the last administration. You have repeated what I said in previous posts regarding the loss of our Constitutional Rights during the last administration.
You seem to ignore what I have said about the fact that we, the people of the United States are the government. It is up to us through our active participation to stop their most nefarious behavior. It is up to us to vote them out of office. It is up to us to demand accountability. It is up to us to demand from our representatives they do what we put them in office to do.
I am a progressive, I believe individuals have the right to determine for themselves many things. I believe that I have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, all of them. As a woman I believe I have the right to privacy in many things that many don't think I do. I believe that we are a secular government and that no person has the right to demand their religious belief into law.
We are already have a mixed economic model. Your taxes already pay for social services including emergency services, roads and infrastructure, education. No country is without a mixture. This is what most people don't understand Capitalism, in fact I am a Capitalist. I simply acknowledge the truth of a mixed economy and want my tax dollars put to proper use.
What you have failed to recognize in this hub is not that I have stated my personal views only that I have defined what the current president is or is not. The fact that you are offended by it is unfortunate but really when you read with automatic assumptions about the writer it is pretty natural you that you will also make assumptions about the writer as well. There were no barbs in my posting to you only a response.
Valerie-You're right about America having a mixed economy. I think the question that many Americans are asking themselves is this: With how much should the federal government be entrusted?
I'm clear from my study of history that humans have a dark side and cannot be trusted with power-meaning that we must keep tabs on those who we've elected. Those in industry are no better, but they don't literally 'govern' us, though as you point out industry can make things difficult for us.
Putting more power in the hands of government is not the solution to healthcare and poverty issues, but neither is putting more power in the hands of industry. What I'm seeing now is perhaps the 'final scene' in which we're experiencing the results of trusting others, whether in industry of government, with our security and well being.
That's a quandry. Who then do we turn to (humanly speaking) in granting authority? Don't have that answer. I wouldn't give more power to government though. Whatever government can give, it can also take away.
Hxprof
I believe the answer is that you don't entrust any single entity with too much power or money. Instead you must create a system of checks and balances that ensures those who are empowered are also checked at the gate so too speak. What we have done is exactly what many of our founding fathers warned us of, we have allowed a two party system to define our country and in truth they are not all that different. We have also allowed our government to be influenced by two very critical external systems:
1) Industry and Industrialists
2) Religious bodies
Neither of these two have the best interest of the "whole" but rather have only the best interest of themselves and their agenda. The parties line up with their hands out and over time only the very wealth who are willing to sell their ethics to the highest bidder are able to run for and sustain themselves in office win places in government. Competition for seats of power is simply to expensive both financially and morally for the common person, although in truth these are who should be serving.
Even "we the people" resist term limits with silly excuses the like of, "it takes to long for an elected official to learn the ropes of Washington". Well this wouldn't be true if we didn't allow lifetime membership in the congressional and senatorial club. If we limited these to 3 terms or even, worst case 4 terms.
If we limited spending for public office to reasonable amounts and demanded true accounting of where all funds came from then and only then would we start seeing the common person back in office and potentially third and even fourth parties emerging with an opportunity to gain momentum in the polls. If all candidates were invited to public and televised debates not just those hand chosen then we could say we were in an open democratic system again.
While I believe we need true change in some of our systems and with Healthcare I believe the right answer is Medicare for all, it isn't the only answer. I would be happy with a regulated private system similar to the Auto Insurance industry in some states, but one that included a public option for those families that have no place else to turn.
I believe the states have lost their right to direct their public education systems and that the federal government should step in with a set of national standards and some funding for those blighted areas where there is no tax framework within the districts.
I believe that any industry that has taken money from the federal government in bailout should not being paying bonus to their executives until all bailout money with interest has been returned to the government and thus the people of the country.
I believe banking and investment industries, including mortgage should be federally regulated.
I believe strongly there should be heavily regulated immigration rules, especially on the H1B, L1, and B1 systems until all Americans are back at work. Industry should not be employing immigrant labor before Americans, especially if they are taking government funding for projects.
I believe people, yes that is right, we the people must learn what the government is up to. We must stop flinging about names and pointing fingers. This is really all this Hub was about, whether or not our the current President is a Socialist, he is not. It isn't about whether I am a socialist, I am not either; it isn't about whether socialism is a good economic theory (it is not self sustaining thus it is not).
If you have read the entire Hub and all the comments, most people here have spent an awful lot of time attacking me and generally trying to bully me. Most likely didn't read the Hub, most simply read the first few lines and likely decided they I was a pagan left wing flaming liberal and not worthy of the time it would take to actually read and respond. I try hard to respond to each person with courtesy, I hope I have done so this time.
I stated that we should take care of the sick, old and young through private industries with external watchdogs(Government) in place. We already have Government watch dogs that check the books of Home Health care companies, but they are in a catch 22, there are not enough of them to go over the books of every agency, therefore corrupt agencies take advantage. If we have more "smart" auditors checking their books medicare would save huge amounts of money. I believe in private health care Insurance, they just need to be regulated, i.e., existing health care issue should transfer from one insurance carrier to another, individuals health insurance should cost the same as group, extra.
ShrikeTexas -
The sick, old, and young are not being cared for by private industry unless they have personal wealth. External watchdogs do nothing more than insure providers behave in specific ways once a person is within the system and paying their astronomical costs for services. The "watchdogs" cannot require that a private service provider change their rules to offer services to those that do not fit their profile.
Not all those with "pre-existing" conditions are old or even obviously "sick". If you had done as I had asked and read some of the comments above you would have seen the situation I have, a pre-existing condition that makes me "uninsurable". It is not something that I caused, it is not something that will ever go away, it is not something that will ever change, it is something that costs significantly in pharmaceutical and frequent surgical intervention so that I can live with some degree of quality. It is also a condition that may someday kill me despite anything I do. Some companies may insure me for everything but this condition, however, nearly everything that requires medical care for me is denied as an extension of my pre-existing condition and requires a fight. I have been fighting this battle for well over 15 years. It is not a catch 22 for me and others like me, it is a fact of our lives that bankrupts families every year.
I don't disagree with the issue that Medicare could be improved from the perspective of cost savings, however it remains less costly from a paperwork and management standard than private insurance. The program is not bad and the goal of the program is not profit, this is a key point. As a person with two parents who had been Medicare recipients for over 15 years I know that it works well. They received the care they needed from the doctors they chose. No question no challenge.
There are simply some things that should not be "for profit". Health Care is one of those things that should not be "for profit" as the primary driver. Capitalism is fine and industry should not be hampered by regulations; nevertheless, the health and well being of human beings should not be sacrificed to the God of Greed....it is today and this must change. Whether this is through heavy regulation of private industry or Medicare for All, it is irrelevant; either way we will pay greater taxes to pay. Personally, I would rather pay for Single Payer and improved services through a system that is already proven, Medicare. Than pay to regulate a system that has already proven corrupt, private providers.
You are right and you are right, I have an incurable illness no one will cover and private providers are corrupt because no regulations have been placed on them, one could wonder why the government hasn't stepped in to regulate insurers, so that we would cry out for big government to step in and take over as they are doing now? I don't know,but if you've noticed I don't have a lot of faith in big government. If you don't think Medicare is inept you should take a look inside that little organization it has alot of explaining to do. Bush has screwed up Medicare for the elderly with his tweaking it, also. I just know that if there isn't incentive in the market place we will have fewer men and women going into the medical field, there will be less research for new drugs and wonderful surgical devices that are non-invasive. We will be dumbing down our medical care and creating a huge burden on the medical staff that remains. I'm sorry your sick.
Alright ShrikeTexas, we are talking in circles because the only thing you see in what I write is that I want bigger government. This is not the case, I believe we need to correct a proven system; you see this as creating larger government.
I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of this. Expanding Medicare to all does not expand government only expands services of a single program and eliminates other programs, including VA health services, state run Medicaid, and others. Thus in fact it contracts government services into a single solution for all American citizens. To expand upon this, it is important to streamline processes within the system including modernizing systems (IT), eliminating paperwork for doctors and hospitals, improving billing systems (single systems and direct on-line billing) are just some of the examples that would reduce cost for providers and the Medicare system.
Again, although I lost my mother last year my father is still alive and on Medicare. He suffers from a number of ailments including Alzheimer. Both of my parents have had several health issues and have received outstanding care from doctors of their choice. There has never been issues with this care from Medicare, never any question as to the care their doctors determined was required including medicines, tests, surgical procedures, and end of life needs for my mother.
While Medicare certainly has problems currently due to the misuse of funds by past administrations and the inefficiencies inherent to the system, these are easily corrected. The system overall works and is far better than for profit systems where your or my health is subject to profit decisions; where someone's bonus may be affected by a "yes" for a life saving procedure.
The reality of whether there will or will not be more doctors or researchers has nothing to do the insurance decision. Private insurance providers are far more nefarious in their behavior and far more likely to deny procedures and negotiate lower rates. The reasons there are not more providers has to do more with the cost of education and the limited space in our schools today. It has more to do with the AMA and their control over that space. It has more to do with the litigious nature of people and attorneys today and the cost of insurance for private practice providers. It has more to do with what a doctor is able to earn in a hospital or group if he isn't specialized compared to what he owes upon graduation. These are not issues of where your insurance comes from but the inequity in the market, this is why more and more doctors are being imported from overseas, from India, China and other Eastern nations under the scarce resource programs.
This same issue is true of researches, this is why the H1B program is so popular. Why we are turning out fewer and fewer scientist from our universities today. Most can no longer afford the costs only to earn $35,000 - $50,000 per year with student loans exceeding $50K.
I am sorry you are ill as well if I am reading your post correctly. But my "illness" was due to a violent crime against me, I was carjacked, kidnapped, and shot three times; nearly lost my life and was left with lifelong injuries including epilepsy. As I said, nothing I did but something I live with including 2 bouts of paralysis 27 surgeries (major and minor), 7 major hospitalizations; the most recent seizure I stopped breathing, there is more but those are the highlights.
I only want to not be bankrupt to live, that is all. I want to see providers of my choosing who will provide me with appropriate care based on my needs without bankrupting me. I want this to be true for my family members. I want those who find themselves suddenly out of work not to have to choose between food or healthcare insurance. I want families who suddenly lose the primarily breadwinner to not lose their healthcare insurance as well. I want all American Citizens, no matter their financial situation, age, or current health to be assured they can seek medical attention and receive appropriate attention for whatever their problem whether it is a hangnail or prostrate cancer. I only want that Americans are not dying because they cannot afford medical care and are thus choosing to not seek help.
Between you and my wife, who is a nurse, my dim mind is beginning to understand, I still would like to keep Government out of it just out of fear of taking my and your freedoms away. It is true if you have a major illness you might as well declare bankruptcy because your insurance is not going to cover it all.
Government is not always bad. It is frequently mismanaged, I agree. The current bill for healthcare is certainly bad, this I also agree. We, the people of this nation must become activist and we must drive our elected officials into doing the right thing for the most people or we must vote them out of office. It is that simple.
Amen to that.
Wow! Long responses. I just want to say: I think this was an intelligently-written Hub, regardless of one's views.
Thanks, some of the discussion was interesting. Some on and some off the Hub Track.
I've always thought that lassez faire capitalism (and related conservative ideologies) is every bit as utopian an idea as socialism...neither has ever been attempted within the context of their full theoretical principles. But its not the principles themselves that are without basis...its the application of the principles. In other words, both systems could work equally well if people weren't so self-interest-oriented.
Excellent hub! You have earned a new fan in me, and I can see that you can handle yourself against the opposing view just fine. :D Great job!
All of this is very interesting, but leaves a question of "what do we do with Deuteronomy 8:18?" It states (paraphrase) that it is God who gives us power to gain wealth, that he can establish his covenant on earth. Some may believe it's irrelevant since it's Old Testament, but it's still in the Bible and it sounds capitalistic to me. Socialism in our history has failed over and over again, and even in Europe where it hangs on, the societies are stagnating. Democracies like the US have out performed them in every area conceivable. There are few if any, innovative new ideas coming from that part of the world, and it is only a matter of time until they collapse under the tax burden. Socialism in its purest form may be superior to capitalism in its current state, but the world lacks the pure form of leadership necessary to make it work.
@Beyond Politics - I guess I am one of those that believe it is nearly impossible to apply any theory perfectly for just the reason you have stated. It is obvious in the US we have some of both, any person who believes otherwise is not looking at the reality of our economic systems;
The person who goes to school on a Veterans bill
Then purchases a home through VA
Secures their money in banks protected by the government
Sends their children to public schools
Ever calls 911
Ever has need of the police
Then receives medical care through VA Medical
Then retires to Social Security and Medicare
All of the above are forms of Socialism. Anytime the government provides services it is a form of Socialism. I always laugh at the person who screams "keep the governments hands off my Social Security".
@T_Agustus - Glad you liked it. I am pretty use to the opposing forces and their vitriolic and scathing approach to debate when it comes to my views. It never surprises me and so I am always prepared. I call what I do with many of my hubs "poking the bear", they are intended to get a reaction.
I do the same thing in facebook all time, either through answering controversial polls and then adding my own twist; or by simply asking controversial questions as my status. It amuses me!
Your hermeneutical skills are demonstrateably inadequate based on the way you handle your selected passages of Scripture. You attempt to speak authoritatively about subjects on which you have no professional training, and thousands of people accept your views as fact even though you yourself have said that these are your opinions and that they are usually the minority opinion. In addition you clearly depart from your own definition of socialism (from Oxford), because the definition states that the result is mutual, communal ownership of property whereas what you say Jesus advocates in these passages is merely giving away property to the poor which does not result in communal ownership.
You cannot simply quote part of a passage of Scripture and expect to come up with the correct meaning. You only quoted Mark 10:21-25, the middle part of Mark 10:17-31. You have to explain the meaning as part of the entire story or you are putting words in the author's mouth and telling us what you think he means, instead of allowing him to tell us what he means. (how could any of Aesop's Fables be understood without hearing the whole story?)
Next you must answer the questions: Why did the author include this story in his book, and Why did he place it here, in between Jesus' teaching on divorce, children, and the prediction of his death, and the request of two disciples? This is called context and it supplements the author's intended meaning and purpose in telling the story. Your context for Mark 10:17-31 is Mark 10:1-45.
Next you have to answer the question of how does the author's treatment of this subject related to his treatment of the same subject in other passages of his book?
Next you have to answer the question of how do other biblical authors understand and treat this subject in their books? You DO know, don't you, that this same passage occurs in Matthew 19:1-20:28 in the exact same order yet with more detail? That it also occurs in Luke 18:15-34, but that for some reason the teacing on divorce and the request of two disciples are curiously absent from this passage?
If Jesus really was having a surface-level discussion and told the man that all he had to do to follow him is to give away his possessions, then we must also say that only six of the ten commandments apply as well, for in the immediately preceding verses the man asks "What must I do to inherit eternal life? (Mark 10:17, Luke 18:18, Matt 19:16)" and Jesus quotes -- not ten, but only five or six (depending on the account) -- commandments from the Old Testament: "Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother (Mark 10:18-19, Luke 18:20, Matt 19:18-19)" So elsewhere in the accounts of Jesus' life we find that he repeats all ten of the ten commandments, yet here it appears that we find Jesus saying that we must only keep five or six of the ten, plus give away our wealth, in order to gain eternal life; please tell us all why?
Actually anasteso1454 my interpretative skills are just fine thanks. Check your facts by the way. Jesus said he did not come to undo the laws but to fulfill them.
Next, I gave three definitions of Socialism, not one. Try reading it will help you when you wish to insult people.
Finally, try manners. They work well and generally those who have them are viewed as having a certain amount of class. Those who don't, well you can only imagine.
As to opinions, we all have them and we all have the right to express them. I have enough education Biblical and otherwise to have well educated ones. Your disagreement doesn't make them less so.
Thank you, you are actually correct with your statement that Christ did not come to "undo" the laws but to fulfill them. According to Matthew 5:17-20 he also says what he means by that and what it means for anyone who follows after him. In my argument I was taking your statements to their logical conclusion: that we if settle for a superficial reading of Scripture at this point we would assume that Jesus was really saying that we must give away all of our possessions in order to follow after him. Thus we would also have to assume that because Jesus only repeated five or six of ten commandments that the young man need only follow those, because he DID in fact ask "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" We both know that Jesus came to fulfill, not to change or undo, the laws according to Matt 5:17-20.
My comments about your opinions were merely a loose paraphrase of what you yourself have said in your own biographies on Hubpages, Helium, and other internet blogging sites. I also could not find any indication in any of your biographies that biblical scholarship is a field of study in which you have received formal training; you only indicate that religious issues are an area of interest to you. Thus my comment, "You attempt to speak authoritatively about subjects on which you have no professional training." If you do have formal training it would be beneficial to everyone that you share what that training is. I am sure that you are a very intelligent person who does not make unscrupulous assertions. Nonetheless, any level of education does not guaruntee correctness.
In the end, my statements still stand unchallenged by your response so far:
1) what Jesus advocated was voluntary surrender of personal wealth for the good of others. This does not result in any form of government ownership, public ownership, or even communal ownership of property in this specific reference (Mark 10, Matt 19, Luke 18), and thus it does not fit any definition of socialism. The closest example might be Acts 2:32-35 but it also gives no indication of government or public ownership of property and also no indication of communal residence of the early Church; thus it may be loosely related to communalism, but not entirely. No person in the first century would have any idea what a socialist is, even if they had a different word for it.
2) if you want to correctly exegete your passage from Mark 10:21-25, please employ your interpretive skills and share with everyone the accurate interpretation of its actual context, Mark 10:17-31 (the full story). Here Jesus explains to the reader what he means by his response, and I believe that if a person explains what they meant that we should pay close attention to that explanation. You should also explain its wider context, Mark 10:1-45, and its parallel accounts elsewhere in Scripture, Matthew 19:1-20:28 and Luke 18:15-34. Share with us why Jesus made the comments he made in Mark 10:21-25, and also why he only repeated five or six of the ten commandments just prior to that?
As with others Anesteso1454 I will say this to you, I have no reason whatsoever to need to place my qualifications on the table. I note that you have not placed yours for our review and assessment. Why should your "opinion" be of any greater import or value than mine? Can you provide your to all my readers and me your qualifications? No? Didn't think so. Nothing more than itinerant preacher who doesn't like that I have insulted his view of the Bible and his view of the Invisible God.
Try reading, I have suggested it previously to you now I will suggest it again as this is the last post you will be allowed on this thread. Read what I wrote. Respond to what I wrote, rather than what you feel like.
My post wasn't about the Bible, it wasn't about Jesus. It wasn't about interpretation of Biblical theory. Had you read it completely you would have know this, you did not.
I could not care a whit less about your interpretation of a book written and then re-written by man.
Thank you again. What is of importance is that there are no "opinions" when it comes to the correct interpretation of Scripture. I don't recall trying to give you my personal interpretation of a book inspired by God, about God, and written by man; I was merely asking for a more complete explanation of your interpretation. It is evident that you have a very low opinion of the bible and (possibly) of Jesus as well based on your most recent comments. If your post was not about the Bible and was not about Jesus (obviously it was about Obama being called a socialist), then why the need to repeatedly refer to Jesus and the Bible? Why are these references even necessary?
I am certainly not one to brag about anything about myself, but since you have insisted:
B.S., Psychology and Religion (dual degrees) Charleston Southern University, 2005
M.Div., Biblical Studies, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (2011)
I don't see any harm in you sharing your qualifications to handle ancient literature in the manner of a professional scholar.
And if you insist that "Jesus was a socialist" then I will respond to what you wrote and say with equal confidence that "Obama is a socialist."
If you can handle hearing another person disagree with you and give honest critique of the argument and the argumentor's qualifications, then you will allow this post. If you are not able to handle disagreement, we both will know it if this post does not appear
You are right, I don't buy "inspired by". I buy written by man and re-written by man to fulfill mans desire to control the populace. The Bible is a book, nothing more and nothing less. It is representative of nothing but mans greed and ambition, were it otherwise there would not be so many different versions or different interpretations. As to the issue of whether persons without Theological degrees are capable of reading and interpreting Biblical writing, why yes they are ; that is why ultimately it was written in the common tongue rather than Latin so the common man could read the Word for himself. Let me suggest you study the history of the Church.
I don't mind argument or disagreement. What I mind is how you have come at it, which is attacking the person first. You clearly went out of your way to do so. You sought out who I was and where else I write. You have no other postings here or else where. Clearly you have an axe to grind. Based on the years your degrees are granted (if indeed they are) you are still young with no life experience as a framework for your arguments, which is fine as far as it goes. But you might learn some fine day that arrogance does not get you far in life.
I will suggest to you again, read the entire thread. Learn the meaning of Socialism. Read what I myself have said about this Hub and why I wrote it.
Good luck in your continued studies and your future life. Get some humility, you will need it in life as you venture into a world full of people with far more experience than you. People who fundamentally disagree with your perspective and your opinions. People who disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, there will be many and most will claim Christianity.
Very well written hub.Thats a lot to digest but I really enjoyed it.Thank you.
I agree fully with your hub and with regards to your feelings on a man's right to be involved , or lack thereof rather, I wondered do you also believe that a man should have the right to bail out and not share responsibility even when the woman wishes to proceed?
I liked the article, especially the title. There are many Christians out there who support libral or lean towards socialistic values, including myself. This article has certainly brought out plenty of examples from the Bible to justify some great points, thanks valentine and bayareagreathing!
The principle valued most by our country is freedom. Included in this freedom is separation of church and state. We have the freedom to elect people to office that have socialistic values. This is what freedom is. We also have a freedom to demand that corporations do not shape our government. Isn't the war in Iraq an example of abuse of capitalism? The people deserve to be free of policies that get our country involved in a unjust war. I personally think we were there just for the oil. We should have the freedom to free ourselves from oil and the political conflict it causes as well as the pollution in the form of increased carbon dioxide in the air and acid rain. Poison is poison.
President Obama isn't a socialist, he's an American.
That is the point. In truth, the current President isn't even a progressive Democrat. What we have in the political forum today is fear-mongering at its worst. Whether Jesus would be a Socialist or not is questionable, he certainly wouldn't be a corporatist!
Hmmm... very interesting hub article, Ms. Logar. Enjoying everyone's comments too. The article was posted at least seven months ago, and the last post apparently three weeks ago. (You took a lot of heat on this article, Ms. Logar. A few weeks - or a lifetime - away from it may do you good.) It may have run it's course, but I'll throw in with you anyhow on account of reading the news this morning (3-6-10) that the fund-raising folks with a certain political party have concluded that casting an American President as a socialist is a successful tactic for, well, raising funds. (Who woulda thunk it?)
Of course, President Obama is not a socialist. It's not even a relevant question. It's a marketing tactic, pure and simple. It's the art of convincing people that either they need something that they don't need or that they don't need something that they do need. (I took a course in marketing once. I figure it rates some use.)
As for Jesus' socialist proclivities, I think that it's not a relevant question and I'll tell you why: no thing belongs to us humans. NOTHING. We brought nothing to the game and we're taking nothing away that we didn't already have by God's grace (1 Timothy 6:7). That's not to say that one shouldn't follow God's guidance to help one another during our brief time on earth. It's just important to recognize that it's pretty darn delusional to believe that we "own" anything. We are but stewards. Furthermore, some of the comments on this thread make it clear to me that everyone is not equally disposed to contribute to the needs of others, generously or at all. Paul seems to describe 'contributing to the needs of others' as a gift, (like prophesying, serving, teaching, encouraging), (Romans 12:5-8). No one of these gifts is enough, but together each member belongs to all the others and forms one body in Christ.
A few additional Bible verses:
"The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants." (Leviticus 25:23)
"The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1)
Thx for creating this community, Ms. Logar.
@Bruce2point0 - I think if you read some of my responses you will see that I do support a mans right to not participate. But only if he executes this right early. I do not believe a man should be forced into parenthood any more than I believe a woman should be an incubator. Sorry for not responding earlier.
@Intrepidmongrel - yeah a bit of heat, but then the hub was written for that reason; to make people think. You are right the term socialist as applied to our current President and others is nothing more than a marketing ploy, a good one too. Those who would destroy this country will do so through the use of language, strange indeed.
In the news recently were sad Christians who demand the stoning of the Killer Whale who caused the death of its trainer. Because this is the second time the Killer Whale has acted within its nature these same Christians have suggested the Whales owners should also suffer the same consequence. All based on biblical law.
I say give me liberty.
Shame that this topic was sidetracked. Valentine writes well and gets her point across clearly and concisely. I enjoy reading her.
I choose not to argue whether or not mythological beings sway to one political/philosophical viewpoint or another. Superman could have been a violent anarchist and no one could have stopped him.
Socialism is just another word for TEAMWORK. Individuals within a community take responsibility and make modest sacrifices to ensure the betterment of everyone. The selfish, egocentric, grab-all-you-can attitudes of American capitalism are immoral and self-destructive.
Societies, much like individuals, do better where there is effective cooperation and the exercise of restraint upon selfish impulses. I get a little tired of the "me first leave me alone" crowd and their whining about 'being forced' to do this and that.
Next they will complain that gravity is forcing them aground.
Shlomo - I think I can honestly say this was the most fun I have had in a long time. The ire this hub created within certain groups was both interesting and fun to respond too, it caused me to think; something I always enjoy.
I also find tiresome the "me first" attitude found in the US. It is often accompanied with the explanation that as a nation we evolved from "hardy stock or tough individuals". What is so often forgotten is those tough individuals had to wrest the land from those who came first.
Ah well, thank you for posting.
Jesus told people they should give to the poor. He didn't steal their money and then do whatever he wanted with it.
Great article. I'm loving the comments of the opposers.."Scripture is taken out of conext" and "There is no opinion on Scripture"...typical statements by those who can't handle having their core beliefs challenged and by those unwilling to take a closer look at those beliefs.
We all have access to the same book in question, The Bible. We can all read and interpret for ourselves. A preacher or Bible "scholar" (I use that term very loosely) has no more understanding of the book than I do.
I've spent most of my life studying various religous philophies and texts. Didn't have to go to college to do it. Certainly no preacher, minister or "scholar" is going to have a better understanding than I do. What I mean is, there are no "qualifiers" to understanding. You either read it or you don't.
I've been saying for years that the fundamental teachings of Jesus were Socialistic in nature and that Capitalism is in direct opposition to the Christian philosophy.
J_Man: actually Jesus also said render unto Caesar when speaking of money, what exactly do you think he meant by that statement if not to pay taxes so the state could distribute it appropriately and at the will of the state? Jesus also said, as does the Bible throughout to tithe and I believe it is 10% of all your goods to the Temple (God) who in turn will distribute to the poor and needy, what is this if not taking from you to do what they will with your earnings. So spare me, the state is simply stepping in for the church which is no longer an appropriate framework for social services and social administration or infrastructure.
Jim: there it is in a nutshell. I have several different Bibles including the Jefferson. I also have many other religious tomes from a variety of faiths and practices. Oddly most have common threads. Isn't it amazing how closely they follow each other yet how often we battle over the minutia? Jesus, was a great teacher as were many others. Christians forget there were others before him and others after him. They forget many don't follow the Christian faith or don't follow their version or interpretation of said Christianity. The crux of the matter is we can all read and we can all study. We don't require university degrees to teach us the Bible only a modicum of intelligence and a willingness read.
Valentine, just reading this now, great Hub. I think you made an important point. I'm not a socialist but you are 100% correct that most americans equate socialism to some type of fascist or Nazi ideology. I also find it ironic that many southern republicans who believe strongly in God and Jesus are so opposed to health care saying that it is a 'priveledge' and not a 'right.' (The logical ones say this, the illogical conservatives say they oppose it because of "death panels," "gov't takeover," etc.
Back to the point: Jesus was the most selfless person who gave and sacraficed to help the poor and unfortunate. If you belive in Jesus, shouldn't you believe in national healthcare?
LRC, I don't honestly know if believing in Jesus should automatically mean you should support a national healthcare system. We all have are reasons for our political stands and our support of various social services. I do know though the reasons for given for the lack of support by the self-professed Christians of this nation shows a distinct lack of Christian "love" and charity.
it would seem that people believe that a social healthcare plan and socialism are identical. While it is true that that is an aspect of socialism, a social healthcare plan is just being a good person. Also, I disagree with your statement that "yes, it (socialism) is a bad framework as a stand-alone economy" in that you would seem to be confusing Bolshevism and Communism for Socialism. In fact, Socialism (and Marx himself) recognise that a capitalist sentiment is important to society. Marx said that Socialism requires that humanity goes through a capitalist stage in order to build up an economy. After this stage comes democracy on every level, and people doing things because it is the right thing.
In response to the previous posters, it doesn't seem plausible that one can "believe" in something as concrete and tangible as a healthcare plan. But it would also seem that a healthcare is something that everyone should have as a matter of course.
But I'm only Australian, what do I know...
Also, (sorry) I forgot to mention that nowhere does it say that the populace should be FORCED to give up their possessions in a communist society, and that people equate Russian Socialism (which was autocratic and therefore NOT socialist - read up on it) and regular, orthodox (yes, I said it) socialism. They are not the same things. Honestly, I think that we should change the name.
Aussie left-wing-commie-pinko-liberal-anything-else-you-can-think-of.
tty
Tom, I provided the definitions of socialism. Read them, they are the basis of what I have written and the framework for my evaluations within the HUB. There is no other standard I have used, not Russian Socialism, not Marxism, not Bolshevism, not Communism. Only the standard of Socialism as defined within my HUB and as referenced.
Any other standard is a bastardization and as you stated not the same thing.
We, in the US, live in a Social Democracy defined as a Republic. Many of our services are Social Services including our Schools, roads, and other infrastructure. Medicare is a Social Service, as well.
Our Right Wing friends wish to demonize those of us who have a clear view of the world we live in by calling it Socialism and equating it to Nazism or Communism. They would rather see the poor remain without opportunity and the country sink further in illiteracy, a nation of ignorant slaves and sheep.
You couldnt be more wrong. Where do I begin? Let's start with your biblical references. You totally misinterpret and misinform. When Jesus tells the man to give all he has to the poor and follow him....Jesus does not forcibly take his wealth. It must be done voluntarily to be a charitable act. Also, it connects that giving all away by itself is not enough, but that you must follow Jesus. I do not see our government looking for voluntary charity, but instead, demanding high tax rates. Also, I do not see our government saying to follow Jesus. No, they refuse to even acknowledge Jesus as the "way". Most conservatives, especially Christian conservatives are very concerned for the poor and are very generous in this regard. They, however, are very skeptical of govenrment' corrupt and politically-motivated role in their lies disguised as helping the "so-called poor". It is only a device to gain power and to be in charge of the peoples money.
....also, when Jesus said give to the poor....he did not say to use government as the middle-man!
Braudboy - you are correct the government does not say follow Jesus, it is not in their domain to say follow any religion. they are a secular entity designed specifically to stand for all the people not just some of the people. It would not be in the best interest of the citizens of this nation were they to force a single religion or faith system. That is why we have a Constitution that protects the rights of all people to worship as they choose.
As to my interpretation of the Bible, well it is my right to interpret as I see fit. Does not require your agreement. As with all intelligent people we read and interpret based upon our experience, knowledge, and personal values. Within the scope of the Christian religion alone there are hundreds of interpretations of the Bible and its meaning. Your interpretation is no more "right" than mine.
As to whether the government has the right to tax, well I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one. No nation can rely upon the goodwill of the people to ensure equity and fairness. While I do not believe pure capitalism is the appropriate model, certainly free-trade is proven unsupportable, and time and again throughout the world a pure socialist economy fails; our mixed economic model works when it is balanced.
So next time you send your children / grandchildren to public schools, on public roads, or tap into social security, or medicare, or talk to a cop, or use an ambulance, or need any of the other public services; keep in mind these are all paid for by taxes.
There is no doubt that there is a need for some government services. There is also no doubt that an overreaching government is trouble. When it comes to charity, this is better left to entities with true intentions, and not political power. Governments are inherintly wasteful and corrupt when empowered with the riches of its people. It is certainly your right to interpret the bible however you wish, as is my right to point out its flaws.
Are you saying that you are not capable of your own charitable acts and that you need government to intercede for you? I, for one, feel I am better capable of giving my money to the causes I believe in, and dont have trust in government to do this in place of my good judgement.
Charity is personal. What I give my money to is a choice based upon my personal standards and my personal system of belief. My decision to give to charity, whether my time or my money is a decision based upon many things including my world experience. How my money is used is determined by me based upon my decision to give. How my time is used is determined by me based on how I give.
Were we all of a single mind many women would continue to be abused today by men who believed they had the right to beat their wives. Were we all of a single mind many women would be forced to bear children conceived of rape or incest. Were we all of a single mind world-wide enslavement of women would be far more prevalent than it is. Were we all of a single mind women would not be allowed to attend schools, neither would people of color, I would never have attended University or worked in my profession for both those reasons.
I am perfectly capable of charity for those things I find worthy. I am also pragmatic enough to understand that government has its place in the process including public education, roads, health care, tariffs, trade, economic stabilization, monetary systems and banking, and a far longer list than I will create here. Isn't it funny that the people who scream the loudest for government to stay out of private affairs are the very ones who also demand that government step in with services when things go wrong? I noticed the Right all over the place demanding that President clean up the mess in the gulf now that BP has failed miserably.
As to whether you can point out flaws in my interpretation, many have tried. All have failed simply because your personal interpretation is no more "right" than mine.
You seem bitter or angry for some reason. I dont know where you are coming from talking about women suffering if it were left up to .....who??? I dont know of anyone who desires to enslave women or people of color for that matter. You jumping way out on extremes. You should wake up and realize that the people in charge of our government today are trying to seize control of our resources in the name of fairness. Obama himself has said there is a point when you have made enought money. His arrogance is delusional and claims that government knows better how to spend money than you do! This is insanity. ...and the right in this country does not actually expect Obama to fix the oil leak, they merely want to point out how clueless he is in handling crisis.
I am hardly angry or bitter. I am however highly aware of what people left to their own devises are capable of. I am highly aware of what people left to their own "charity" are capable of. On a very personal level I am very aware of what it was like before there were laws in this country making it illegal for a man to beat his wife. Before there were shelters paid for with tax dollars for women and children who were victims of abuse. Before the days when women could ask for and receive rape counseling who were victims of incest or violent rape.
Bitter? No, but I am aware. Perhaps you should make yourself more aware of the world around you and what is happening to those not as fortunate as yourself.
You being a man, would not be aware of these things. You would not be subject to them and they would not affect you. But you should be aware that it was and continues to be the Right, and the oh so Christian Right who stands against many of them and certainly stands against any public funding for them. Wake up? I hardly think I need to.
Obama has never said there is a point where a person has made enough money. Please find me that direct quote. What he has said is that those who are wealthy should be paying their share of the tax burden, they should be paying the same burden percentage as those in the shrinking middle class. They should not be excluded from taxes through loopholes in the tax laws. They should be included through closing those loopholes. This is sensible, those of us who are lucky enough to earn decent livings should pay taxes at the same burdened rate as those who are earning significantly less. The tax burden should not shrink the greater your earnings.
The government is in a better position than you or I to manage certain aspects of social services such as those I have already named. I do not agree with all or even much of government spending, that does not mean however that I think all of it is wrong. Today we pay far less in taxes than most other countries, you should consider this. Our problem is not in our tax burden as much as it is in our other fiscal spending policies, such as free trade, that however is a different issue. Private citizens are not in a position to cover off the many services that government supports today, this is a simple fact. Would I wish that government were not in bed with so many private industries, yes that would be nice. This however has been a fact of life since long before this administration, it has been part and parcel of our system since the Reagan days.
Using the logic of the Right, it is not the governments and most especially it is not the Presidents crisis. Why should it be? BP is a private industry. It is their crisis. It is their fault. It is their burden and the only thing that should be happening at this point is the government should be stepping in with arrest warrants. You can't have it both ways. Hands off Capitalism when there is profit to be made and all hands on deck blame it on the government free for all social accountability when their is blame to be passed out.
Your statements are misplaced concerning women. I dont know where you are coming from. You think that government saved women from the evil men in our country. This is absurd. Obama most certainly said the comment" I think at some point a person has made enough money". It was a recent speech and I dont know how you missed it. Do a google search. It was somewhere in late April. It certainly was an "off teleprompter" moment and it spoke to his real feelings. And you should realize that it is because governments are in bed with anybody is the main reason we cant trust them with our wealth and resources. Dont you get it, it is government we must put limits on much more than businesses. Businesses have no control over lives. We can choose what businesses we want to do business with. We have power over business. GOvernment, on the other hand, has ultimate power over us if we do not limit this.
The only recorded political statement Jesus made was "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." So, even if I grant the point that Jesus was a socialist (which I don't, but just hypothetically), He did not use his socialistic views to gain power or exploit people as so many modern politicians do. And, yes, of course, right wingers can be just as bad as left wingers. And it took me FOREVER to scroll all the way down here! Is it a full time job answering all these comments?
Not a full time job at all, the hub was put up months ago but people still find it and people are still offended by it. You need not grant me anything. The point of the hub was not to make a religious statement but to try to get people who were standing on soapboxes espousing specific views regarding political stances to at least understand what the meaning of the words they were throwing about were. Most Americans do not actually know the difference between the various Socialistic theories or Communism, they simply use labels as scare tactics. The brand anyone who have different views of politics, social standards, or religion for that matter as "socialists", demons, or these days "terrorists". I simply attempt to get people to think.
Generally? It doesn't work.
Too many false labels are at work when it comes to socialism.
The media has pounded in America's brain that socialism is evil for too many years. Hitler this and Stalin that.
These men weren't Socialists, they were evil dictators.
These weren't democratic states, they were army controlled regimes.
America needs to get off the socialism label and change it to the compassion label.
To me, anybody who calls themselves a Christian cannot be against compassion and giving to the poor.
In addition, I find that capitalistic and Christian views conflict with eachother. A true capitalist cannot worship Jesus, as the capitalist fundamentals dictate that the almighty dollar is God.
"They would rather see the poor remain without opportunity and the country sink further in illiteracy, a nation of ignorant slaves and sheep. "
I think that this is a point that needs to be looked at further. People call America the land of opportunity, but is the opportunity equal for everybody?
Again, I can't believe that somebody who is opposed to giving the poor people more opportunity ( healthcare ) can call themeselves a Christian.
Chris- wake up. America is certainly the land of opportunity....at least as much as it exists in todays world. Christians are not against compassion and giving to the poor. Christians are the most charitable people you will find. But, we are not suckers who will swallow the line that government is the way to do it. Governments are corrupt and have political agendas. As a Christian, I reserve the right to give my money to Churches, Christian charities and directly to any needy cause I find...not to a government who will dole out money to any special interest group that will promise them votes on election day.
Braudboy - My point is that many of the same people who call themselves Christian also do not want to give money to the poor in the form of health care.
I simply cannot understand the idea of health care as a special interest.
In fact, I believe that by not giving health care that basic human rights are being violated.
Health care has never been denied to anyone in this country. It is even being given to illegal aliens. You have been misinformed and duped. The recent debacle of our government is to provide health care INSURANCE to everyone. This was a purely political move that will only cost this country millions and millions of dollars. Chris, the problem will always remain this....as long as govt is promising freebies, then a large segment of our population will sit back and take the free ride. We should, instead, find ways to incentivize people to do the right thing and provide for themselves.
Here are some FAQs for everyone about socialism and I belive that you are 100% right about Jusus being socailist even though I am an athist.: Answer: In a nutshell, Socialism is a political system with these primary goals:
Work environments are owned and controlled by the workers (i.e., not privately owned)
Democracy
Equality
What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?
Answer: Communism depicts, in a sense, a democratic utopian society with no distinct socio-economic classes, no money, and one in which there is essentially no need for a government. Needless to say, true Communism is something very different from what we saw in the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.
Socialism envisions an attainable democratic society in which there may be distinct socio-economic classes, workers have direct control of their wages and work environment, and the government plays an active role in society.
Didn't Socialism die with the end of the Cold War? And if it failed in the Soviet Union, what makes you think it will work in the US?
Answer: The Soviet Union was not a Socialist state - either politically or economically.
First of all, Socialism requires democracy and the rule of law. This did not exist in the various "Communist" nations like the USSR, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, etc. Secondly, the state (and by proxy the government officials) owned the means of production - not the society as a whole. Therefore, the profits of labor enriched a never ending network of bureaucrats and party officials, while the workers were exploited in ways the capitalists of other countries could only dream.
The Cold War was a political conflict between two military-industrial complexes; it was not a clash of economic systems (i.e., Capitalism vs. Marxism). While this perception was pervasive in both the West and the East, the Soviet Union was Socialist in name only. Within a short time after coming to power, Joseph Stalin had turned the Soviet Union into an authoritarian regime with a centrally managed, bureaucratic form of state capitalism for its economy. The core purpose of that economy was to produce armaments to perpetuate the state's struggle against the West. This "Socialism in name only" dictatorship provided a very convenient foil for western capitalists who could easily point to the Soviet Union's failures as an argument for capitalism. It is also worth noting that - to the extent that these nations attempted Socialist development - they did so in material conditions that were not conducive to it's growth (i.e., a lack of established industry, lack of a skilled workforce, and economic sanctions from the world's major powers).
Socialism, by contrast, requires an economic model that extends democracy into the workplace. That model is based on the production of goods and services that meet the needs and wants of the society as a whole - it is not one that merely enriches an elite sect (be they capitalists or commissars).
A more appropriate depiction of Socialist societies might be found in those nations of post-war northern Europe - Denmark, Sweden, etc. Though even these nations are not entirely Socialist in nature, they do at least approach some of the characteristics of Socialism properly defined:
Democratic representation
Public ownership of utilities and large institutions
The right of workers to unite for collective bargaining
Universal access to health care, education, and transportation, etc.
The Socialist Party of Kansas rejects the assertion that Socialist solutions are not attainable in the United States. It is obvious that nations with fewer resources than the United States are able to provide Socialist solutions for their citizens.
How are Socialists different from Democrats?
Answer: Democrats support capitalism, but they believe that the government may play a role in ensuring that the capitalists give the working class a "bigger piece of the pie." Democrats generally favor big government programs to give aid to those who find themselves on the losing side of capitalism. Socialists don't want people to have a bigger slice of the pie, they want the people to own the pie. For example, Socialists don't want to give a single mother a vision card and a Section 8 apartment - they want to empower her by ensuring she can find employment with sufficient wages, guaranteed daycare and health care, access to a college education, safe schools, and sufficient free-time.
What is the point of being a Socialist? Isn't the current two party system sufficient?
Answer: The current two-party system is entirely inadequate. In reality, any "two-party" system is a de facto one-party system, as shown by Anthony Down's An Economic Theory of Democracy. In such a system, both parties seek to attract the "middle-ground" voter and, in the process, become more like one another. This accounts for the tremendous similarity between the policies of the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republican party has been particularly effective in recent years at manipulating the electorate by using "hot button" issues and "swift-boating" tactics -- the net result of which has been a very polarized electorate following each election cycle. Such polarization makes for a very unstable democracy in a two-party system.
Ever notice how the same issues seem to come up every election cycle? Ever notice how the same proposals are made every year? Notice how the politicians forget their promises to take on big businesses, the lobbyists, and special interests after they get elected. We need more than "Change" or "Change we can believe in." We need a change in the way we produce, consume, and relate.
To thrive, a democracy needs the input of a diversity of perspectives to continually challenge the status quo. The Socialist Party offers a left-perspective currently absent from the political dialogue in Kansas. Our participation in the political process is vitally needed to provide a progressive voice coupled with deliberate grassroots action. Why is anti-Socialism so prevalent in America?
Answer: When Socialists and militant labor activists appeared on the scene shortly after the Civil War, they faced extreme repression. Since many of these activists were recent immigrants from Europe, Socialism was branded as something foreign, anti-American, and dangerous. And things got worse in the period immediately before World War I. When the USSR came fully into existence and the horrors of Stalinism reached the outside world, the natural enemies of Socialism labeled Stalin's tactics "Socialist." Because America had never had a very powerful Socialist movement, very few Americans understood what Socialism really stood for and accepted this distortion carte blanche. The tactic was very effective.
Why are Socialists often called radicals?
Answer: Some call Socialists radicals with the intent of producing a negative reaction. They point out that Socialists don't agree with the present social order and seek to turn the system upside down. This, for them, is outside the realm of acceptable options for solving society's problems. Most Socialists embrace the term proudly. We sincerely plead guilty on the above charges.
America has gone through a phase of de-industrialization having turned more toward a service-based economy. Doesn't Socialism require an industrial economy?
Answer: Despite the fact that more people are working in the service sector, that does not mean we have moved away from an industrial economy. Fewer people work in industries today because the forces of production allow us to produce more with a smaller workforce.
Regardless, the aim of Socialism is to build an economy in which the fruits of people's labor enrich humanity as a whole, not just the owners of the means of production. Under the current economic model, employees receive wages or salaries for their work, but the owner keeps all the profits from the labor of the employees. Despite the advances in technology and production techniques, the familiar owner-worker dynamic (and all
Braudboy, please read this link:
http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/artic
I think you are misinformed when you say that everybody has access to health care.
Your nation will be judged by how you treat your poor and your sick. I hope that the USA is morally up to it.
Very nice synopsis SocialistGuy
Bravo. Although I do not agree with some of your comments Valentine I do applaud you for points well thought and well made. It takes discipline to disagree with someone with the finesse you have shown and I believe you had every right to toss out that Tony guy. It's guys like him who give Christians a bad name. These so called Christians don't seem to understand that what they've been taught is something so twisted and nothing like what the Bible says Jesus stood for.
I think we can all agree that Jesus was all forgiving, gave away everything he had minus the robe on his back, he'd help anyone he could. I don't know many Christians like that.
I'm still stunned how the right wing managed to claim him as one of their own. If Jesus had even a slightly smaller heart, he'd want nothing to do with these greedy fools.
Thanks for the page and the food for thought.
Rutherford I rarely seek agreement. I only seek honest discourse where both parties are respectful of each other personally even while disagreeing philosophically.
I am never stunned or even dismayed by the actions of the fringe. It is these that give a bad name to those who are actually trying to do good in our communities. Unfortunate but all to true. It is the fringe, the wild eyed maniacs, the terrorists, the killers, the bombers and all their ilk who provide the fear factor and enable us to pass laws inhibiting freedoms. It is the fringe that create chasms too wide to cross or even yell "Peace" across. It is the fringe that start wars and say "it is good, we killed those children, those women, those peaceful farmers; because somehow they are the enemy."
Yes, Rutherford it is the fringe that have us all living in fear. It is the fringe that have us looking over our shoulder and down our nose at anything or anybody that is different from us. That have countries passing laws against women wearing the veil, or allowing police to demand proof of citizenship simply because of the color of a persons skin.
What these so called Christians have done is twisted the very message to be unrecognizable. Sad, isn't it?
Hubbers
In the true sense Jesus was not a Socialist, the bible that Jesus preached was all about the word of God. Moses received the 10 commandments, the guide and the laws for one to enter into the heavenly kingdom, to present to the Jewish people and used by Christians throughout history.
Jesus spoke to the people not to governments when he preached about giving and helping the poor. There are many rich people that do give to the poor and do good works according to their own free will. Note the words “ free will “.
Jesus when questioned regarding to whom does he give alliance to, said “ give to Caesar, what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s ‘’ meaning that government is different from one’s personal treasure is not related to government. Sounds like a separation from church and state?
For one to give his own treasure to do good is what Jesus preached. For one to take from another to give to another is not charity but it is stealing, a violation of the law of God. Government has laws regarding stealing which include punishment for the act. Government officials have a judiciary responsibility to spend taxpayer money in a responsible , fair and honest way after the government receives the money.
We have heard it before “ taxes without representation is evil”. hence our government by law can distribute money to the poor. To pick and choose to who must pay taxes must take in consideration the fairness and integrity of the whole.
It is funny to hear everyone speak so much about giving and being forced to give. You know who gives more to charity? Poor people. Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent.
Why do legions of lower and middle class people take fiscally conservative positions that are not in their best interest? I agree with much that has been said on this hub but it does not take a sociologist to see that those that seem offended by the notion that Jesus was socialist seem to think that governments are inherently evil and a large portion of America wants to sit around and collect free money. A) The government is us. B) We are the most productive nation on the planet from workers perspective. I know lots of people out of work but I don't know many lazy people.
The truth is that we go through phases of more regulation and less and tax policy that either looks out more for the middle or upper classes depending on the party make up of the administration and congress. This is nothing new. The marginal tax rate for the top bracket was slightly higher under Clinton compared to Bush and the country did much better economically if you remember. Why do legions of lower and middle class people want to protect the top bracket's right to pay less when it has proven that they get less services and the economy is worse off?
The answer is that the right uses wedge issues like abortion and immigration and claims of socialism to breed fear during election season and you idiots fall for it every time. Where was your talk of deficits when we were funding two wars off the books on supplementals? Were was your talk of socialism when Bush passed a drug entitlement (which i supported) for the elderly that was not paid for?
The truth is that trickle down economic theory does not trickle down. It trickles up. We should know that by now. The truth is that lack of regulation does not allow the markets to work more efficiently, it leads to a casino atmosphere in which credit default swaps crash an economy. The truth is that the lack of environmental regulation does not help business it leads to carbon in the atmosphere and so much poisons and hormones in our food system that young girls are having their periods 3 years earlier than just 20 years ago because of toxins in their endocrine system.
Those who want to throw around the term socialism should think about it the next time they:
Leave for work in a car that has been designed to meet a federal safety standard.
Drives on a publicly maintained road across a safely designed bridge.
Pull up to a traffic device that gets you safely through an intersection.
Have your lunch of food that is free of salmonella because of governmental inspections.
Buy your child a toy that is free of lead.
Catch fish at the local lake that is not polluted.
Jesus would want government to do what people can not do for themselves, what he did for them. Help them heal and make sure they have enough to eat. We social democrats do not want a society where everyone is equal, we want a society where everyone has an equal chance. Just like what Jesus wanted.
If the right gets it's way, unfettered markets will rule and your power and respect in society will be based on how much you have. We are quickly becoming a banana republic with a crumbling infrastructure and all the wealth and the power concentrated at the top. Is that what these people really want?
Well, you waded right in to that one, didn't you, by inviting controversy. I agree with your basic premise, but it must have taken a lot of energy to answer all of these responses. I've just read another hub by someone who said they refused to talk politics at all. Maybe this is the reason.
I am very, very new to Hub Pages and still not sure how I'm going to like the social networking aspect of it. Found your hub just surfing around trying to familiarize myself with the site and thought this sounded like a kindred soul.
Jo, Hi
I will answer you first because you are easiest to answer. Yes, of course I stepped into it and did it with my blinkers off and fully aware of what I was going to stir up. I like that, enjoy it even. The debate keeps my blood running and helps me to understand what people are thinking and where I have to stand my ground.
I haven't been writing lately, mostly due to my work load but it seems it is time to wade back in. Kindred soul...come on in the water may be choppy but it is an awful lot of fun.
Chadbraden - what most who preach the version of Biblical freewheeling and deal-making that includes ignoring the three books of Law in favor of their own definitions don't understand is their very foundation is built on quicksand.
They read with blinders on and see only what is in agreement with their world view. If I said Jesus was a six foot tall White Man with Blue Eyes and Light Brown hair they would agree with me wholeheartedly. If instead I said Jesus was a man who likely stood no more than 5'7" tall, was brown skinned, brown eyed, dark haired, with middle eastern features; in fact closely resembled those they are demonizing today. Well can you imagine the storm that would stir up?
Yet, my description of the Christ is fairly close.
The reality is that we live in a time when sound bites take on a life of their own. When fear mongering and hate mongering are the life blood of both sides, but frankly the right do it better. We live in a time where those that have not only want more they want to make certain the rest of us have less. This is the truth of our times, we are less educated, we have given up our voice, the fear of the few that they will lose their power and their skin privilege is invading every sector of our society and fear is taking over.
What most don't understand about the times of the Christ is when he spoke to the Synagogues he was speaking to the rulers in many cases. When people gave to the Synagogues, when they tithed it was to provide for the for those who could not provide for themselves, for widows and children, for disabled. Private funds are no longer able to do these things effectively, no longer able to educate or provide all encompassing welfare systems this is why the government must assist.
What the Right wants to do away with is this support and assistance. You are right in in your evaluation. I have simply added some food for thought.
This article really missed the point of Mark 10:21-25. Back up to verse 17. The rich man, (this dude was about 20ish) asked Jesus Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may be able to inherit eternal life? Here the this man recognized who Jes...us was by calling him teacher, (rabbi, preacher). Now next Jesus asked him, why do you call me good? Only God is "Good". At this point Jesus wanted the man to recognize that he himself was God in the flesh by using the word "Good". Now the man knew the Law, (the ten commandments) and kept them all, (physically). Now when Jesus looked at him and Loved him, here he was looking at his heart. The man did not want to come out of his comfort zone and leave all his "Earthly Possessions" behind. He had greed in his heart. Now this is what made the man sad, because he did not want to give up what he had here and now. The treasures in heaven, I dont think is literal gold and silver but the treasure of living with God Almighty rather than living in a tormentuous fire filled Hell. Jesus wants your heart not your pocket book. This has noting to do with Socialism. (Just keeping it REAL)
Well Russ, you really missed the entire point of the Hub. So it really isn't worth getting into a discussion. Perhaps, as I have suggested other people over the past year, you might try reading the Hub before you offer me your interpretation of what the Bible says. In all honesty I am not all that much interested in what other peoples interpretation of a 2000 year old book written by men is, but I know you want to offer it so feel free.
But just to put things in perspective for you. The Law is made up of three books. The Ten Commandments are not the entirety of The Law. Christians have it very wrong and that is why they fail in their keeping of The Law. It is also why they fail in their interpretation of The Law. If you believe that The Christ was the Messiah, promised by God and of the house of David than you must know he came in fulfillment of prophecy, not to overturn the law.
The Bible is two books, the first being the Old Testament. While many of the original books are missing it nonetheless contains the books of Law, study them and you will figure out what the entirety of Gods Law is, none of these have ever been changed or expunged, so check your labels and make certain you aren't wearing any mixed thread clothing, don't plant your garden incorrectly, don't work on the sabbath, and please take your rebellious son to the town gate to be stoned to death.
As to the rest, well I could go on and on. But my interest in that particular book is purely academic. Its accuracy is questionable but its power to control the masses like sheep to slaughter is amazing. Its ability to cause otherwise civilized people to terrorize entire ethnic groups, killing, pillaging, raping, and entirely slaughtering entire nations is unparalleled. That book has been used to justify slavery and the debasement of women in this nation.
So am I interested particularly in whether you think I misinterpreted a passage? No not particularly. No not at all. Why not instead address the real issue of the Hub.
Oh, what an excellent article. And may I say, your writing is superior, enlightened and crystal clear. A refreshing and welcome break from much of the simple-minded white noise around here. And my eyes are not subjected to a series of grammatical speed bumps for a change!
In the context of his society, Jesus was clearly a socialist, as far as that term is defined in the modern era. The parallel is not perfect, of course, because socialism is largely a product of industrialization as well as the democratic or semi-democratic nation-states of the modern era. Nevertheless, the parallels are obvious.
The inability of so many people to realize the actual nature of the modern American economy is truly staggering. Who on earth do they think is responsible for their precious Medicare? For social security? The minimum wage? The 40 hour work week? Anti-child labor laws? These kinds of ideas were planks in the socialist platform 100 years ago, and were pushed by socialists, their allies and their intellectual descendants. Where else did they come from? Perhaps out of the sky from the socialist Jesus?
The resistance from American Christian conservatives to accept this fact about Jesus and the Gospel really stems from the inherent tension between their Christ, who they want to love, and their political ideology, which they also want to love. They always say (as some have said here in the comments) "it's about voluntary giving." That's Glenn Beck's schtick, for example.
Hmm, let's see: it's voluntary, but if you don't do it, you go to hell. Doesn't exactly sound very open to discussion. God tends to be pretty anal about these things (although decidedly NON-anal about other things, if you catch my drift...) If anything, by this standard a truly Christian government would levy a flat 90% tax on everyone, redistribute it evenly, and make sure universal healing was a reality.
Secularist10 - thanks for your response. I have all along maintained the very points you have made so well. The fact is we live in and our economy is based upon a social democracy. Were this not the case we would not have made so many of the social advance we have done. We would not be marching through so many countries demanding they follow our path to "righteousness".
I have tried to read as much as possible to the above posts. I tried to wrap my head around all of it..
First of all in reference to Jesus. He was not a Socialist. But he was a very gracious and humble soul. He taught to give freely from your heart and to use good judgement/wisdom because that is what 'WWJD' means. He does want us to take care of those who can not take care of themselves due to limitations in their physical or mental abilities or economically speaking... Would Jesus rather you give alms to the poor or give the poor guy a job so he can be self sustaining. He taught to give freely to one another. Although he does say give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to the Lord what is the Lords. This teaching was given for a purpose.
We all have to pay taxes in whatever political machine that runs your country. Pure and simple. But unfournately for our government we do not trust Washinton any more to make the right desicions for the good of the people.... it is all about themselves. Too many lobbist and corporations lining the pockets of the politicians. Our forefathers never intended lifetime members of congress. A congress that can vote in a Health Care Reform bill and then write themselves right out of it... hmmm When you vote for someone you think you can trust and then what they promise does not come to fruitition. This does makes me angry. There are a few honest politicians that want to do the right thing. And it takes more than a few to make it right. 12 trillion in debt and rising. Washington is out of control.
I can see you point at times. I can understand what the you are trying to convey. But I can say I don't agree with the out come of Socialism. I currently reside in the UK I am an American citizen. I work for an American company for Tricare in a US military instillation. I am paid green back dollars. I still pay the Queens taxes at 50%. Does anyone like to see that much money being taken away from you by an government entity? These taxes do not cover the National Health System that would be another 7% tax. They just got rid of the screen tax about 5 years ago. So most houses do not have screens on the windows. In country full of flies and no air conditioning. Can I say how hard that is for someone not use to not having the modern day comforts. I might not get to 80 degrees 3-4 times during the summer but hot is still hot. Sleep in 78 degree weather for most of the summer at night ,you still sweat....
The French people are upset because their government raised the retirement age from 60 to 62 because of the financial inpact on government revenue.
The English Parliment had to re-model the benefit programs because they can no longer financially payout these benefits without increasing taxes yet again. And they are finally realizing people are using the benefit system to their advantage. Working around not working. Parliment is finally seeing the light. People will abuse a social program due to laziness and fraud. It happens in our country everyday. No one should live on social benefits for a long extended periods of time.
I agree with Valentine. Eveyone has a right to an education, health care, housing and the basic necesities. There should be programs to aid individuals with needs. But they should be held repsonsible for working and putting back into the system. Unless of course you or physically or mentally disabled.
I was taught you have to work for what you want. Simple, not hard to understand. I am not one to enable a free loader. That is what our current social programs allow to happen. In cases where education is being funded by the government assistance programs it takes 5-10 years to earn a BS degree. People will find ways to abuse the social programs we have in America. That is what I have a problem with. I am not ready to give up my hard earned dollars to give up to someone who is only it for what the can get out of it.
I think you Hub is informative and diverse in the opions of many Americans.
Respectfully,
Lookingfortruth
Valentine Logar
''The fact is we live in and our ECONOMY is based upon a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. Were this not the case we would not have made so many of the SOCIAL ADVANCES we have done.''
Can you expand your thoughts on the above statement and how it relates to your hub and our present society?
Valentine Logar
'' GIVE UNTO CEASAR WHICH IS CEASAR'S ''
CHECK THIS out about the tax cuts debate.
Mr. Goosly explained President Barak Obama's position on the George W. Bush
tax cuts on foxnews.com on the Glen Beck's show.
A program worth NOT MISSING about the TAX debate.
The link
video.foxnews.com/v/4359620/beck-taxing-times
Valentine Logar
'' GIVE UNTO CEASAR WHICH IS CEASAR'S ''
CHECK THIS out about the tax cuts debate.
Mr. Goosly explained President Barak Obama's position on the George W. Bush
tax cuts on foxnews.com on the Glen Beck's show.
A program worth NOT MISSING about the TAX debate.
The link
video.foxnews.com/v/4359620/beck-taxing-times
Jon - I wouldn't watch Fox News or Glen Beck if someone paid me to do so. They are an arm of the RNC and and dishonest and disingenuous as is possible to be.
Why would you suggest I do so?
As to your other question. We live in a social democracy, do you dispute this? Our social advances, including Civil Rights, the rights of woman, protection of children from being exploited in the workplace, Unions, the 40 hour work week, minimum wage, just to name a few are in part due to our social democracy. These are all considered "social" advances.
Whenever I see someone that has a problem I just blame them and say "personal responsibility" then I hand them a Aynd Rand book and say "read it". That's how I handle the needy and entitled of our society.
John that is ridiculous. While I like Ayn Rand and find many of her philosophies admirable, she did not propose theft of labor. In fact she proposed just the opposite. She stood upon a philosophy of fair trade and absolute value for labor of mind and body. The entire basis of her watershed work, Atlas Shrugged was that no entity had the right to steal the labor of another or create a situation in which each man/woman could not receive equitable "pay" for their contributions to society.
Our taxes are the lowest of all the NATO countries. Personal responsibility has nothing to do with Infrastructure, it has nothing to do with outsourcing or in-sourcing of American manufacturing and technology jobs, it has nothing to do with unbalanced trade agreements, it has nothing to do with out of control health care costs, it has nothing to do with poor education systems and high drop out rates, it has nothing to do with unequal conviction rates among young black and Hispanics. Ayn Rand never proposed there should be no taxes nor did she ever propose there should be no social systems in place or a government that was appropriately focused on providing for those things necessary for a well run nation.
The list goes on, we have a nation that is sliding downhill rapidly. Personal responsibility a buzzword with little relevance when you cannot feed your children, when the dollar has no value in the world market, when foreign nations are buying elections, when corporations have a greater voice than "we the people".
Ayn Rand did not disdain personal compassion. She did not discard humanity. She had a great deal of compassion for society and individuals. Those who fail to understand who she was and only see objectivism as the ideal of selfishness miss the boat entirely.
Valentine Logar
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE FONDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.The people in Washington need to follow it. It's all about EQUAL JUSTICE for all not social justice for all.Everyone is entitled to enjoy the fruits of THEIR labor. You don't want to labor, why should someone else be forced to give you the fruits of their labor?
Jon - I am very familiar with both. The people in Washington are put there by voters, that would be you and I were we so inclined. Unfortunately, it seems the RNC and others on the Right believe it is far better to sell all of America to the highest foreign dollar, to corporations, and other big dollar bidders. Perhaps you should take your own advice, pay attention to who is paying for those seats in Washington, those big dollar advertisements as we come into mid-term elections.
We are a Republic, that is how we are designed. We are a social democracy that is how we are designed. We are unfortunately be sold down the river to foreign money, that is how we are being redefined.
I will say to you as I have said throughout this hub and others. Part of a well ordered society is a sound infrastructure, well managed and balanced trade, preparation of the next generation, and provisioning for an aging population. We frankly have none of this today.
Again, we have the lowest taxes of any NATO nation. We receive the least for our tax dollar as well. Our trade imbalance is legendary. As for enjoying the fruits of our labor, well that would be grand were it not for the fact our manufacturing jobs have been outsourced and much of our technology jobs have been insourced leaving Americans without work to labor at.
Our infrastructure is aging. Our health-care costs are out of control. Our education systems are failing our young people. College costs are rapidly becoming beyond the reach of most families. In short the middle class is rapidly shrinking, nearly disappearing and the gap between the haves and have-nots is widening.
Those who want to stand on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should become familiar with the intent not just the words. The intent has expanded to include all members of society, it seems though you believe that intent should contract to only include those with specific privilege; skin, gender, sex.
Meaning White, Male, Heterosexual. Those who were sperm lucky should be the only people who enjoy the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the rest can starve for lack of work, die of disease, remain illiterate.
Taxes are not theft. We don't disagree on the idea the populace should have a say on how tax dollars are spent. This is accomplished through our vote. We simply disagree how that vote is cast. I firmly believe a well ordered society cares for the people within it and ensures there is work for them to do, education systems to improve their opportunities, health care systems for all citizens, infrastructure, balanced trade. I don't believe the only opportunity for our young men should be war. I don't be believe we should remain fossil fuel dependent. I don't believe anyone should be forced to choose between eating and necessary medicine.
You assume people don't want to work. I have never met a man or woman who was able bodied who didn't want relevant work. They want to work. They want to feed their families. They want to bring home pay checks, buy homes, cars, pay for college. Your comment is insulting, people want to work they can't find work that will pay a living wage.
Tell me Jon where is the work in manufacturing? Are you aware of how many foreign H1B Visa's are issued each year for Technology resources when there are Americans with those skills looking for work?
Yes Jon, Americans want to work. Americans like you have spent years undermining the fabric of this nation, agreed to dismantle the underpinnings of the labor market and then blame the American worker for their inability "Labor".
Valentine Logar
‘’Yes Jon, Americans want to work.’ The Government believes that getting food stamps is good for the economy Leader Pelosi says so.
''blame the American worker for their inability "Labor".
Who is responsible to give the American worker a job, the government?
''where is the work in manufacturing?’ Can you name those manufacturing jobs that Democrats say have left the USA.
''they can't find work that will pay a living wage.’’
What is a living wage in your opinion?
‘’I firmly believe a well ordered society cares for the people within it and ensures there is work for them to do’’
Do you mean that it’s the Governments responsibility is to provide work ( jobs )?
President Obama accused the US Chamber of Commerce of accepting money from foreign companies for funding Republican voting campaigns. The facts are clear that there is NO proof of his accusations. Recent events that the mainstream media will not report. General Motors ( government owned ) sent $30 million to their Mexican plant. The interior dept.signed an agreement and a federal grant with a German manufacturer to furnish windmills for a field off Martha’s vineyard.
The Obama administration approved a multi million loan to a Brazilian oil drilling company to drill for oil (George Soros has a multi million dollar ownership). The Obama Moratorium on drilling in the gulf have caused drilling rigs to leave and reset up in Brazil. Other American drilling rigs are idle and can’t get permits to drill creating a loss of jobs and business. A grant to a Chinese company building solar panels.
Are these some of the manufacturing jobs you speak of in your reply?
Our government surely is a part of the job problem.
With due respect for your opinions and your liberal thoughts.
Obama has been in office for two years, prior to his taking office job loss in manufacturing and service industries was staggering. Plant closures to move manufacturing jobs, including textiles, clothing, auto, semi-conductor, chemical, paper and pulp, pharma, and many others continued leaving communities without viable sources of economic growth or income.
So let me answer your questions one at a time.
No I do not believe the Government should be the employer of choice. I believe the Government should enact laws and policies that protect our economy and our borders. This includes balanced trade agreements. I do not believe we have these today and this is the reason we have nearly all of our manufactured goods made elsewhere. This is why we have been outsourced. This is why we have an influx of H1B labor when there are Americans with skills who could fill those positions.
A living wage is simply that a wage paid for labor provided that enables a person cover basic needs. We are not a slave society and we should not think to create one. We fought hard in the past to ensure that each man and woman would be paid fairly for their labor. Do I believe some unions go to far? Yes, I happen to believe this is the case. On the other hand, I also believe some business owners go to far in attempting to strip workers of all benefits and send their workers back to a time when they are not paid a fair wage for their days work.
I should not have to name each and every company that has left the USA for either India, Mexico, Malaysia, or the Philippines for you. Is that truly what you are asking me to do?
Levi, Stetson, Ford, GM, much of aircraft industry leading the way Boeing, Dow Chemical, shall I continue?
The 1.8 million jobs opportunities lost nationwide since 2001 are distributed among all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with the biggest losers, in numeric terms: California (-269,300), Texas (-136,900), New York (-105,900), Illinois (-79,900), Pennsylvania (-78,200), North Carolina (-77,200), Florida (-71,900), Ohio (-66,100), Georgia (-60,400), and Massachusetts (-59,300)
Shall I continue?
We now import more than we export at an alarming rate. Our deficit are huge and will not shrink if we do not make corrections.
You have shown two very small and select Items both having little impact on the overall economy or jobs. While disturbing they are not as disturbing as the overall trend. I do not disagree the government is part of the problem, however it did not start with the current administration, it started with deregulation which goes back to the Regan days.
Many people, by the way have accused the US Chamber of accepting foreign money to support and fund RNC campaigns. If they don't like this taint let them show where this money is coming from. The facts are unclear and the only ones who are reporting there are no "facts" is fox, an arm of the RNC who have also made large contributions to the RNC. Hardly what I would call unbiased.
By the way, my opinions are based on well researched facts. My liberal thoughts are actually not liberal which is very specific in its stance on all subjects. My thoughts are my own and independent on all subjects. Try hard to not put me in a box, I am progressive admittedly. I am also intelligent enough to not listen to the Becks of the world or get my news from Fox.
Valentine Logar
I appreciate your response but allow me to comment.
''Obama has been in office for two years''wrong
Obama served in the majority Democrat controlled Senate in 2007 and 2008.He actually served in attendance 30 days.
'' prior to his taking office job loss in manufacturing and service industries was staggering. Plant closures to move manufacturing jobs,''
When the Democrats took over majority control of Congress in 2007 unemployment was 4.6%.Today it is 9.6% nationally and much higher in many cities in the US. The Democrats have had control of the government for the past 4 years.You surely can reconize that fact.
The President and the Democrats have said the past administration policies is why we are in the recession. After spending $1 trillion ,job unemployment has risen creating problems for our citizens.If you use fair and common sense note that the existing government is not doing the job.
In Nov. the people will speak. VOTE THE BUMS OUT!
Circular arguments abound. Obama inherited this mess from Bush. Should the RNC win some seats we will have exactly what we had during Bush, only worse. With the Tea Party taking some of the seats, unfortunate the bar has been lowered. But then again the top two percent of the country only want what is best for them and too hell with the rest of the country.
If you stop watching Fox and listening to Beck you might pay attention to the real numbers, they tell the story of what was happening before Bush left office.
Valentine Logar
''you might pay attention to the real numbers, they tell the story of what was happening before Bush left office.''
What are the real numbers if I may ask.for example
from 2000 to 2006 2007 and 2008
Jon - do you own research. This administration didn't create the problems and they have had only two years to try to turn a ship that has been sailing for 8 years. I am not going to go back and forth with you any more on party lines. It is ridiculous and has no relevance to the Hub. Want to have a party battle find someone else. My Hub stands I have spent far to much time with you and your party rhetoric, Fox news and all. I provided you numbers two posts ago of jobs lost since 2001. Want other numbers the look up Labor Statistics.
Good stuff!
I love the inherent hypocrisy within Conservative ideology! It makes my life, as a liberal, much easier.
A typical conversation: What's that you say? You are for small government but you want the government to impose morality? You believe in the American Dream but you also believe in the teaching's of Christ? You believe in family values, but oppose contributing members of society to start their own family?
Yes Bob I also love the rhetoric and hypocrisy. Though must admit I have now grown tired of it. Ridiculous and and silly arguments demanding I prove the obvious, especially when I have done so already.
What I have grown fearful of is the "righteous" right with their guns, their hate filled messages, "not like me", it reeks of another time in our not so distant past.
While I agree it reinforces to me why I am a progressive it also makes me terribly afraid our country doesn't have a way forward.
I laughed when communism (not Communism) became a bad word.
I chuckled a little when socialism became a bad word.
I cringed when elite and educated became bad words.
I shit my pants when progression became a bad word.
Don't think I could have said it better. Had dinner last night in the UK with a someone who watches us with dismay. I have to wonder sometimes where our nation, once a beacon of civil progress, intellectual debate and core decency went so wrong.
Granted we have always had problems. Always had challenges. Always had a need to improve. Thus we have changed over the years added to our Constitution to right the wrongs of our history. Progressed; not always without pain.
But where did we begin to devalue decency? Where did we begin to devalue ethics? Where did we begin to devalue education, intelligence, pursuit of excellence, quality, and frankly the middle class the cornerstone of our society and economy?
I am so terribly afraid for us as a nation.
Valentine Logar
There are 40 million on food stamps and 9.6%+ unemployed receiving in some cases 24 months of unemployment checks.
The progressives and the liberals ( proud )have been in power the last 4 years.They just can't get the job done right.
In 17 more days ON NOV 2ND, the people will get their chance to speak out.
Jon - this will be the last comment you will be allowed on my Hubs. You have nothing of relevance to add.
Yes, all those food stamps and all that unemployment. What does it mean?
It means there are no jobs. All those jobs that once were the foundation of the middle-class went to China, went to Indonesia, went to Philippines, went to Mexico and the list goes on. All those white collar jobs for IT, call centers and other services that were supposed to replace them, where did they go? The went to lower cost H1B workers and Malaysia, India, Philippines and other countries who are educating their populations to take over our mid-tier jobs at an alarming pace.
It has been proven time and again the trickle down economics do not work.
It has been proven time and again when the Republicans don't get their way they are the party of "NO". They did this when Clinton was in office. If they win the seats during the mid-terms they will do the same, they will bring the government to a screeching halt. Rather than do the business of the people they will spend their time in mindless investigations of the President and those around him. They will extend tax breaks to the wealthy while further crippling the middle class and poor. They will continue to spend and spend more, on defense and war killing our young.
Poverty isn't a disease. Ignorance is, unfortunately it is a disease with a cure that is being withheld by the those, like you who believe education, health, and yes even the pursuit of happiness is only to be afforded to those born with sperm luck - white, male, and heterosexual.
I just pray that someday in the future America will see through Republican Conservative rhetoric and stop voting against their own and future generations best interest.
For the uninformed Socialism has became a dirty word; used by the ones in power to scare and manipulate, few know what it really means and too many are fearing it without trying to understand the value of the principal that generate it. Because of ignorance and misunderstanding the term socialist became almost an insult and it is thrown loosely in the face of the ones who are trying to reason against greed and selfishness.
Do I believe that Jesus was the first socialist? Most definitely!
Jesus knew what we tend to forget: people are NOT created equal – some are strong while others are weak (physically, mentally and emotionally), some are healthy and others are not. Taking care of the less fortunate is a duty of any society that calls itself human or civilized. The animal kingdom does not follow this rule and it goes by the principal “the survival of the fittest”, but that is precisely the difference between animals and humans; compassion and a higher understanding.
I am also aware of the abuses some people will not shy away from taking advantage of programs like MediCare, welfare, etc. but throwing out the baby with the water is not the best way to go about it. Programs meant to help the less fortunate should be managed better, not abandoned altogether.
Obama has been called worse than just a socialist by people who see his “redistribution of wealth” as a treat to their many privileges obtained as a result of ignoring the needs of others. By no means would I compare Obama to Jesus, but let’s not crucify him just the same.
Petra, very nicely put.
The argument comes from both extreme sides. Free market capitalism vs. full on socialism. There are social democracies that work fine in this world. If America had some of the programs Canada has, such as bank regulation and health care, the right wing would call them socialist. In Canada we are very free, the fact the we focus on social programs does not affect our lives in any negative way. Like Petra said, "some are strong while others are weak (physically, mentally and emotionally), some are healthy and others are not." In other words, sometimes people need help and we are all human beings. We should stop arguing about money and help people as much as we can.
I think I have to make a comment at this point regarding "redistribution of wealth". I am a moderate progressive when it comes to fiscal issues, what this means is I support fiscal responsibility in government spending, balanced budgets and equitable taxation.
I do not believe the wealthy should be taxed at significantly higher rates than others; only that they should be taxed at the same rates as others and that all their earnings should be considered not just those they earn as active income. This is what would be considered an equitable tax policy.
Personally, I would like to see a complete revision to our current tax policy. Flat rates on all income with brackets for income above specific levels, I personally think think the level should be higher than than it is today, I don't believe you can be considered "wealthy" if you earn $250k. I believe we must eliminate all deductions.
The social issues of today cannot be swept under the carpet any longer. We got here because of deregulation of our banking, of our trade policy, of our of control health care costs and the for profit insurance industry. We did not get here because of the small amount of Medicare fraud, Welfare fraud and other frauds which in the scheme of things are minisule compared to the massive programs.
We got here because of corporate greed and personal greed. We got here because elected officials are bought and paid for by lobby's and now the Highest Court has made corporations people and money speech, they have sold our Constitution and our rights as free people to the highest bidder and it isn't us, not us as a people and certainly not us as individuals.
No Obama isn't a Socialist. No he isn't the second coming of Jesus either. This Hub was never intended to proclaim him as one it was intended to try to educate on what the other was and the differences between what Socialism was and what the President espoused.
As individuals and as a nation we do have an obligation to provide for / care for the weakest within our society. To do otherwise makes us no better than the primates. To do less, to place profits above humans is immoral and unethical. For a nation that claims to be Christian I am always shocked by the vehemence with which they will claim "let them starve" or "let them die" when faced with a choice to pay $100 more in taxes per year or eliminate a social program that feeds or provides for "those people not like them".
Excellent analysis, and you definitely know your material.
Great post.
Valentine, I am a anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist, whichever term one chooses, and thought your piece was very well informed. As the saying goes in some of the socialist circles "No Gods, no masters!"
I did not read through all the comments, but many people declared that taxation was theft and this is absolutely false. If one understands the philosophical doctrines this country was founded upon, then one would run across the principle of the "social contract." If anyone is not familiar with the "social contract" then please refer to Hobbes or Locke and their philosophical treatises.
In addition, if anyone claims "taxation without representation" and are not in the Fascist camp or Socialist Camp, then they have representation. Both liberals and conservatives have representatives in the federal government, but Fascists and Socialists do not and thus do not have representation. As such, the true "theft" are the taxes taken from the Fascists and Socialists who lack representation because of discrimination by the political structure and media in this country. Not that I agree with the Fascists, but they are a political group that are discriminated against and using their ideology illustrates my point.
Anyways, on the topic of taxation and what Jesus said. Jesus said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." So, Jesus commanded that we pay taxes that are owed in addition to helping the poor and thus social programs are something that Christ would have demanded.
Arizona, to read through all the comments would have made your eyes bleed. It did mine at times.
I agree with the rest although I would say that progressives are less represented today than ever. In fact I would say the people are barely represented in their government at all after this mid-term.
It would be my suspicion that most do not know who either Hobbes or Locke are anymore. I have them both in my library, along with many others. Amazing the degree of illiteracy you find today on these issues.
Thanks for stopping in.
Hello, I really liked this article. As a undergrad college student I am taking English and throughout this past semester I've read a lot of literature. You writing style is beautiful and elegant it flowed and brought great pleasure to read.
Thank you Issac. I hope you will read more and good luck in your studies.
Excellent article. Very well written and full of relevant facts, supported premises, and valid conclusions. Why can't all of out public discourse be like THIS?!?!
And like you said of Locke and Hobbes, reading important thinkers of the past on STILL relevant discussions is left to the poly sci eggheads and those of us who still value deep thought and philosophical progress. But, alas, TV, reality shows, sports(although I love 'em), twitter (ridiculous to think you can have discourse 144 characters at a time), 24hr News (owned by MNC's like NewsCorp and GE), and facebook all distract us into marginalizing material that progresses argument, while instead, stunting argument into catch-phrases and half-truths (or flat out lies).
Where in the bible does it say for the government to take from the rich and give to the poor?
I appreciate this article.
A US citizen, I left the USA after Bush Jr and the forces of unregulated capitalism toppled US democracy and institutionalized the politics of fear and greed.
I'm now living in a socialist country - the poorest one in Western Europe - and even though I'm an immigrant and not entitled to the full benefits of this country my quality of life is better than it was in the USA (earning $70K a year) in a thousand small ways.
At the moment this country is cutting budgets and selling assets to stave off the hounds of Euro-zone capitalism, but yet just this month it has managed to raise the minimum wage and decrease the cost of prescription medication by an additional 6% (the over-the-counter cost was already 50% to 70% less than in the USA). In the past 5 years the country has instituted energy reforms that have attained a state where 45% of the country's power is now generated by wind and solar resources.
Jesus lived liked a socialist and he preached separation of church and state. This country's citizenry is 98% Roman Catholic but the democratically elected government sanctions abortions and gay marriage.
Today's socialist governments are doing a much better job, overall, than are the capitalists.
@The Manning-it is vital to place things in perspective. First and foremost, the Bible instructs to tithe a very specific percent of your income to the temple, this amount was to be used in part to care for widows, children, infrastructure, military, and government. Keep in mind the temple and the King acted in concert in most of the Jewish states during the days of the Old Testament.
Further to this, Jesus specifically instructed in the synoptic gospels: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” Matthew 22:21
The above has been addressed in the discussions above more than once, but in brief this direction by The Christ could be interpreted in more than one way, the most viable interpretation though is the division of secular and temporal authority. It is the demand to "render" secular authority including taxes when demanded and these are not negotiable. It is further vital to understand in context of today the idea that the "temple" can no longer hold authority or provide for the needs of the nation as it did in times past when the nation was made up of city states with smaller populations. The government has taken over many of the actions the Temple once provided for.
@DRory - Thanks for your insight and comments. I have also lived overseas and found the systems worked far better than our own.
I really liked this hub, and as an Australian i really love our Medicare system for instance one of my friends was using a bench-saw and slipped and chopped off one of his fingers so we called the Ambulance (free) he was taken to hospital and his finger re-attached (again free) where as in America i was watching that michale moore doco "Sicko" and it had one guy that essentially did the same thing and it cost him a $13,000 bill to have his finger re-attached which to me is unconscionable i had no idea how bad it was in America, not to mention our medicines only usually cost us $5.40 per prescription.
Hi,
The American pioneers tried socialism in the initial period. It was a catastrophic failure. They reverted to individual effort.
There are no socialists in Europe, only functionaries.
Do the poor need socialism, socialists certainly need poverty
And please read your history, the reason you have a house, car, TV, education, a surname, holidays, the right to vote, literacy, 50% of your children do not die in childbirth, hospitals, schools, a life expectancy over 35, a salary, not to mention shoes on your feet .... for the first time in history for the majority of the population is due to a capitalism.
Sorry Ciao - clearly you did not read the Hub or any of the hundreds of posts that came after. Had you done so you would understand the intent, the definitions and the concepts.
You do not.
You also clearly have no clear concept of what I advocate or my understanding of my history. Did you do so, you would not come in to my Hub with an attempt to insult my understanding of American history, policy or current political definitions. It was, by the way a poor attempt.
My history by the way has no socialism in it. America was based on theft, slavery and genocide. Yes, there were some great thinkers and yes the laid the foundation of a great country; nevertheless the foundation of that great country was not a moral one. The 'socialism' to which you refer was one of community reliance, it was out of necessity and was hardly a "catastrophic failure'.
America continues, as to most nations to have elements of Socialism within their Democratic Republic. Services delivered by any level of government are by their very nature "social" services and thus a form of socialism.
Infrastructure - roads, bridges, public parks, libraries
Public Schools
Police
Fire
Border Patrol
National Guard
Emergency Response Services
All of the above, services delivered by the government.
The reason we don't have children working as slaves. The reason we have public education. The reason we have the right to vote, literacy, and many of the things you mentioned is activism not capitalism. Some of those things we have because of Unions, not capitalism.
Suggest you dive into a Civics class or two.
Great post. I do love the hypocrisy of the Christian "right" conservatives maintaining the view that social charity should be "choice" but abortion or homosexuality should be "unlawful".
Even though both abortion and homosexuality are not illegal in any manner in the bible (abortion was actually legal in jewish law), they refer to passages that may be interpreted as acts of sin. But meanwhile there is clear guidance from Jesus of being either charitable and loving to our fellow neighbors, especially to those in need, but this is only if you "choose".
If charity is a matter of "choice", shouldn't homosexuality and abortions be the same? Hey Neo Conservative Christians, lets have it one way or the other.
Shrimpster - I think sometimes both sides of the argument are not free of hypocrisy, nevertheless you have certainly nailed some of the key issues squarely.
I don't know that we can line up Charity, Abortion and Homosexuality and say they are the same, that is a matter of choice, they are not. Charity is certainly an issue of choice. Abortion is frankly a matter of medical privacy. Homosexuality is a matter of gender preference and determined at birth, not a choice.
The point I'm making is that the neo conservative Christians like to enforce behavior or prevent actions by passing laws and justifying them on scripture but then when its a law that contradicts their political or economical ideology, even though it is encouraged in scripture, it should then be "choice".
When I said "choice", I meant to say that the person has the freedom of choice to decide on having an abortion, having sex with the same gender or distribute their wealth to the poor...or rich.
The other issue that kills me is that they call Jesus the "Prince of Peace" but then support war. But guess when our politicians justify war as a path to peace, the neo-Christs can justify it in their minds:-)
Ah, now I understand thanks for the clarification. Yes, indeed there is some discrepancy between thought and deed.
the tea party has already tried and failed to coopt the founding fathers as having similar veiws(the tea partiers would be the tories of their time)
Soon they will try to coopt jesus as being of tea party values!! its the Romans and the Jewish preists that closely mirror the tea party at the time of christ.
Valentine:
Having spent the last few weeks immersed in topics of politics and religion, I had reached a point of frustration. Sitting in front of the computer, searching for sanity, I typed: "Was Jesus a Socialist?" (I'm sure for the same reasons that you wrote the article). It seems that you -- in your article and your subsequent comments -- have touched on EVERY issue that I have been thinking or talking about lately. As with you, I know what I believe and why I believe so. Still, tonight, it was especially heartening for me to come to this page and hear another human articulate these views so well. Thank you.
Annike - I think we search for a way to articulate. This was written nearly two years ago, while my thinking on the subject hasn't changed much I could add far more to it. I am glad it you found it helpful.
Yes, Jesus was a socialist, but the first?
Osiris, Dionysus, Pythagoras, Buddha and others preceded Jesus, all of them savior gods who came to earth from heaven to raise up the poor and despised, and to humble the exalted.
The Gospels make sense only if it is understood that Jesus was a communist preaching communism; his mission was to convert the world through personal covenant in the membership of a universal brotherhood (which is the proper definition of socialism). Can the Christian heaven be less-or more?
He started the permanent social revolution of the poor, sacrificing himself as the exemplary model in the permanent war between rich and poor , and laid the foundation for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The struggle of the socialists will triumph in the Age of Enlightenment. No less a genius than Albert Einstein proclaimed that "capitalism is the primitive phase of human development". It is the Dark Ages of our present generation. It cannot stand against the progress of civilization.
But be careful for your safty if you struggle on the side of Jesus; remember what happened to Him for his politically left/liberal manifesto..
I know this isn't an abortion discussion, but after reading the first few rather ignorant comments, I feel I must pose something for your consideration:
The religious majority (and the republicans) don't want sex ed in school. They don't want kids to learn about sex and they don't want them to learn about protection (condoms, the pill, etc.). They all believe in this magical idea of abstinence. News flash, it doesn't work. Just look at Palin's daughter...
When your hormones are running rampant in your body, you're not going to just "not do it." It's not NATURAL. We did not EVOLVE that way. Reproduction (through sex) is a natural urge and it feels good for a reason: So we keep doing it (preservation of the species).
Now, it is every woman's right to choose if she wants to have an abortion or not. Sure if it is a consentual relationship and the man is still around, his imput should be considered as well, but ultimately, the WOMAN has to spend nine months of her life carrying the child to term and deal with all the crap involved in the labor process while us men just 'come along for the ride.'
The comments about abortion being "birth control" are completely ignorant. First and foremost (allow me to be repetitive) TEACH SEX ED AND HOW TO BE SAFE in the first place and this will not be a problem. From my point of view, a lot of these "birth control abortions" as you put it would be coming from young women making bad decisions or thinking "It won't happen to me."
Just another fun fact for you. You're all worried about abortions because they "kill babies." News flash: America has the second highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world. More babies die after being born (due to horrible birthing practices in hospitals) then to abortions.
Now, Yes. Jesus was a socialist. These right-wing nutjobs who want to "bring this country back to it's Christian roots" seem to not have a clue about what Christianity really means. Jesus taught to care for your fellow man. Jesus gave 'health care' to those who needed it for NOTHING, because it was the right thing to do.
Right now, the top 1% in this country hold something to the tune of 35% of the pie (in regards to wealth in America) while the other 65% of the pie needs to be divided up against the remaining 99%. Not taking into account that this in NOT evenly distributed against this remaining 99%, that is still a horrible number.
The people on the very bottom don't WANT to work because their work goes to the benefit of every person above them well before it gets to their pockets. The people on the bottom are the people who make this country run. The grunts; the gofers; the peons; WE make this country run. WE don't want to work because WE aren't geetting our fair share.
I firmly believe that if everyone held an even cut of things they would be more willing to put in a days work. And for those of you ignorant enough to believe that a socialist system would cause you all to "pay for the lazy folks," take a minute to think about that statement.
YOU ALREADY ARE PAYING FOR THEM! Welfare! Medicare! HELLO!? Can you honestly be that ignorant. You don't want a socialist system (which you don't even understand to begin with) because it would probably cause you to do something you ALREADY ARE, when the reality is, more people would be willing to chip in if everyone got the same cut.
Capitalism is a HORRIBLE system because people are not caring or giving. People are greedy and they have destroyed the capitalist system. Those with the money can squash out any old Joe with a dream and the get more money by outsourcing jobs to other countries, all while rendering the WORKING CLASS AMERICANS UNEMPLOYEED and causing you to have to pay for more people.
Your own system which you defend and hold so highly and dearly is the system that is screwing things up so badly. How anyone could be so willingly ignorant to that is beyond me. The CEOs are motivated by the almighty dollar and they will step on and squash out anyone and everyone they need to to make more. Why do these people deserve 25, 50, 75 MILLION dollars a year? Why? While the working men and women who DO *ALL* THE WORK only get 50, maybe 100 thousand for their efforts, if they are employeed at all?
Get a grip on the facts and learn the difference between socialism, communism and nazism. Although they would love for you to believe they are indeed "fair and balanced" Fox news is full of crap. If you believe the nonsense they spew, you should be put on an island far, far away from society.
One quick clarification. I presented myself as one of the lower class when I stated "WE don't want to work because WE aren't geetting our fair share." I would like to say proudly that I work 40-50 hours a week while studying mechanical and robotic engineering. I don't want to work because I feel that I do not get paid what I am worth, but I go to work EVERYDAY and I work my butt off while I am there because that is what every citizen should do.
Allow me to leave you with one more thought: Engineers will one day create a robot or a program that will do every job known to man. One day, everything will be done by robots and the human element of the workforce will be non-existant. It will be CEOs, their companies and their robots and a bunch of engineers to make sure everything works and build more productive machines.
What will become of the economy and all the wealth then? There will be CEOs with products to sell with next to no overhead costs and there will be engineers to make everything else run. No one else will be working because every other job will be taken by a machine. Given all the technicallities, these are the only people that will be left making money.
That leaves the rest of this country, probably something to the tune of 95-98% of the population, who will have no jobs and thereby no income. The illusion that is money; wealth; has just vanished. When only a small few control it and the majority doesn't have it, money is meaningless.
Consider this as you defend your capatilistic views and confuse communism, socialism and nazism. The future may be tomorrow, but it doesn't rely on yesterdays views. Things aren't working, why keep them going?
Well AJ that was a bit of a rant then wasn't it. While I suspect you didn't fully read the Hub, at least you didn't come in to tell me what a godless commie witch I was and that is refreshing.
Very interesting Hub! Being a Texan living in a country many American would label socialist I can only say more people need to read what you wrote because they are clueless.
And my vote goes to Jesus being a socialist if he wasn’t he would have set up his healing practice in a an expensive office, manned by a well dressed staff and only saved those who could have afforded the fees, except on the days when he was doing charitable work and that he would have wrote those off on his taxes. *tongue in cheek* sort of.
Well Justsilvie, being a Texan living in a nation most Americans wrongly label socialist, some wrongly label fascist and others label a Christian Nation; I suspect reading this one wouldn't get through. If you read through any of the comments you would know why.
My personal favorite is the one that told me that he knew what Jesus would do and that was slap me silly!!
Loved your tongue in cheek.
As a Capuchin friar for 27 years now, I can honestly say that the majority of you so called followers of the word need to have a second read. Miss Valentine is absolutely correct, paying largess to the poor is the duty of every Christian, if you missed this section, it is called THE NEW TESTAMENT, I suggest you re-read it.
Dear Brother - thank you but it is always difficult to get people to read the book the profess belief in. While the article was written a bit tongue in cheek the underlying intent was too cause thought. We are so very lost in our own grasp for the gold ring we forget our brothers and sisters in dire need. Each time I see a sign waved that says "keep your hands off my medicare" I shake my head in despair. We have stopped giving, we don't want to provide through taxes, we don't turn away from those in need. It makes you wonder doesn't it?
The tongue in cheek is always rewarded with serious wrath...lol....On a Christianity standpoint, I think if Christians truly practiced what they believed, there wouldn't be need. Period. I think Jesus was making a point of loving others, and in doing so, requires meeting needs. Feed the hungry, house the homeless. It shouldn't be a political statement, but something we do to be decent human beings. I'm not big into a Marxist socialism that hinders my free will, but our free will could be directed to doing something for others, not just self-focused.
@prziloczek
I live in Britain and I don't find a problem with Socialism in my Country.
Those that tend to have problems with Socialism are the EDL and the BNP who want to turn Britain into their own Money Making Scheme.
The NHS is Socialism, when the Toffs and the Lib Dems sell that off to the Corporations, you think about that.
The Rich get Richer and the Poor are getting Poorer and some of these Rich have more money than they will ever need and the Tax Breaks they get is unfair to the Majority.
@JON EWALL
That's not the Democrats fault, they inherited a Debt Ridden Economy from the Republican's dating as far back as Ronald Reagen's administration.
It takes well over a Decade to see what mess has been made when the dust settles.
"Give to him who begs from you, do not refuse him who would borrow from you"; "you received without pay, give without pay."
-Matthew 5:42, 10:8
Love for the poor is incompatible with immoderate love of riches or their selfish use.
-Catechismus Romanus, Catholic
See also: Luke 6:20-22; Mark 12:41-44; Eph 4:28
Centesimus Annus:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/enc
The insistence by a select few in the above thread that they are somehow 'entitled' to a surplus of wealth and yet still think themselves Christians; take heed of the above sources. You blaspheme, and must remedy your ways lest you be judged a sinner.
@ Ron......So if its over a decade to place blame for waiting for the dust to settle, It's Bill Clinton's fault? Just using your argument. I think it's impossible to place 100% blame on anyone, although for some reason, Americans need to place the blame on one person or party. The real truth is everyone has been screwing it up for a long time. It doesnt matter which party is in power, as long as they have their hands in someones pocket. That someone is usually pulling some strings too.
Rod the real issue though is Reagan started a downward spiral with his trickle down theory of economics and his war on the middle class. Every president since that time has certainly added to it, we can point to the economic decisions they made that undermined the working middle class in one way or the other, dismantling manufacturing, sending jobs overseas, creating huge trade imbalance. We see now the culmination of all those decisions with what is happening across the US today.
I agree Ms. Logar...I was just making an observation about Ron's argument. It's hard to place blame on an administration. The early nineties boom in economy...thanks Jimmy Carter!! No, not likely. Its funny how when times are good during the Clinton years, he was a hero, but now its a decades old ploblem rearing its head. Trickle down economics...Which president is stopping the tax breaks for the big corporate guys?? The one who doesn't want to be re-elected. There isn't a president who isn't being supported by corporate dollar. You have to have the rhetoric about taxing the rich, it's what the poor want to hear. The reality is its all lip service. Democrat or Republican, same self-serving crap, packaged and spoon-fed to perspective demographic.
As a "recovering" Christian, I love this hub. I suggest anyone who is interested or wants to know more about true socialism to read the Socialist Party website, just google it. There is very interesting info there.
I must say THANK YOU for this! I have been trying to echo these very thoughts to my christian friends who slander our President with calling him a socialist every chance they get. I have always been a true believer in a seperation of church and state. It's always the ones who claim to be christians but never "walk the walk" Thank you again, my sentiments exactly.
Lisa Marie - I have been having fun with this one for two years now. It is always amazing to me what people think and believe they know.
To say Jesus was a socialist is very strange. Nowhere did he indicate the state should be taking care of poor, or providing food for the hungry. Rather, the Scriptures say if people will not work, they should not eat. The Ten Commandments indicate that private property is a right. Christianity is a faith system based on truth. Socialism is a political system based on lies. To say the Son of God was a Socialist is of all things, Bibically and completely inaccurate.
Valentine...I am definitely a new follower. Your brain rocks me.
Jesus was not a Socialist. Yes he commanded us as individuals to care for the weakest members of our society, to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the prisoner, and most of all—tell them the Good News. Every Socialist program expressly prohibits the most important part of Jesus' message—the Good News. Therefore a Socialist government is the opposite of Christian Charity. Every Socialist government in history has been officially Atheist. Jesus would not approve.
Jesus told you and me to take care of the poor. He never said to have Caesar do it. He could have said so if that is what he meant. American Socialists/Liberals give far less of their money and their precious time to charity than do Christian Conservatives. A Christian Conservative wants to give his money to the poor; the Socialist wants to give YOUR money to the poor.
You want to disown Hitler and the Soviets. I can see why. But let's take people at their word: Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro all called themselves Socialists. The very word is in their public documents. The 20th Century is littered with the corpses of failed Socialist utopias—100 million dead souls. Socialism differs from Communism only by degree and method of implementation. Marx preached Socialism as a step toward Communism. The two are siblings.
Jesus told the rich man what he did because the rich man had to love God more than money. Jesus knew his heart and knew he loved money above God. That is the lesson there, plain as day. Not because he had to be a socialist. There is nothing wrong with prosperity if it does not displace God from your life; if it does not become your idol.
Socialism is based on two great sins: Envy and Covetousness. Psychological studies show that people will be happy with $50,000 a year of their neighbors make $25,000. They will not be happy with $50,000 if their neighbors make $100,000. The poor in America are only poor relative to those who have more; certainly not poor to the poor throughout the history of the world or the poor in the world today outside America.
All attempts to "level" societies have been miserable failures from small communes to huge regimes. People are unequal in every way except in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the law. A fair race will always have winners and losers.
You claim Obama is not even far to the left? By what criteria? He is farther to the left than any previous American President, yes? His voting record in the Senate was farther to the left than the other 99 senators, yes? He is to the right of Josef Stalin, if that is any accomplishment.
I am poor but I have known a lot of rich people. None of them gained their riches off "the backs of others." That is Marxist propaganda. Part of it is the false idea that common labor built the wealth of America. Not so. If that were so then China, India, Africa, Russia, and South America would have far greater wealth than America today—they had far more common laborers available. It was ingenuity, innovation, invention, intelligence, hard work, and free enterprise that made America wealthy.
I have a Hub that might interest you:
James - I know longer respond in detail to ideological nonsense with no basis in reality. Since you clearly did not read the hub in detail and are thus not reacting to what was written your scree is not worth a response.
JESUS the Biker . . .
He was a lot like you and me. The government didn't like him. The church thought he was weird. His friends were few. What friends he had, denied him. He was persecuted by hypocrites. He hung around people like you and me, not the goody-two-shoes Pharisees.
Yes, if Jesus were on this Earth in the flesh he would be next to you on his Harley-Davidson, telling you that he loved you.......
enough to die for you.
Thank you, Valentine, for fighting the good fight.
I've really enjoyed reading your blog.
I realize that you're a Deist, but I thought that JESUS the Biker was so apropos since the majority of the (R) wingers are "absolutely" certain that He wasn't a Socialist, in spite of what has been taught about Him.
With warm regards,
Tabula rasta
?
Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23
Note that giving up his wealth was Voluntary - Socialism as a political way of governing is not voluntary.
Matthew 25:31-46 - Although Christ is speaking to a "group" he is not speaking to them AS a group but as individuals. Money taken forcefully by the government as a means of providing food and shelter to the poor is NOT an individual choice - it is not done out of one's own "calling" by Christ to take care of those poor.
Again in James 2:1-7; Christ is not speaking to them as a group but as individuals. We are not to be "respecters of person" or of those who are wealthy and of high influence over those who are not.
Your arguments that Jesus was a "socialist" are of merit only when the fact that he is speaking to each individual and not to "society" is ignored.
LMW2 - you may circumvent the teachings of the book you believe in all you like. The fact is that book teaches specifically that you are to care for the least of society. Further it tells you to render to the government what is the governments, what the do you think exactly do you think Jesus was talking about in that comment if not taxes?
My argument by the way was not about Jesus at all but was in fact about whether the current POTUS is or is not a Socialist. Had you actually read it you would have known this and been able to respond with something other than a whinge about whether I am capable of interpreting a 2000 year old book of fantasies written by emasculated men.
I have been studying socialism more as of late, and I have come to one conclusion...socialism IS the best way to go but only with Jesus at the helm. No man would be capable of instituting true socialistic programs properly and without influence of others. This program also is best suited with the extinction of money.
Topaz, interesting approach. Truthfully, socialism is not an economic policy that can be successfully applied to large economies. Perhaps within small communities under very specific circumstances, such as ashrams where all members have the same social, moral and religious beliefs and are willing to suspend personal gain for the good of the community under all circumstances.
The problem is you cannot apply Utopian Socialism to broader human communities where all members do not agree on the basic conditions. This especially holds true where the community must interact with others to trade for necessary goods and services, thus maintain some form of monetary system.
Finally, the problem with your idea is the "Jesus" at the helm thought. Christianity is only one of many religions, not even the largest. What would you do? Force non-believers to accept Jesus? Force non-believers to abide by the rules despite their non-belief? Leave them out of the Utopia entirely?
Thank you for breaking it down. It was truly about being positive and balancing it all out. We need no labels we just need to get together and help with a little bit of this an that. It is simple yet we make it too complex.
Do not know if Jesus was the very first Socialist, but to me sure was a Socialist. Some are always complaining that the government is not Christian enough for them, but when the government helps anybody, it now is too much like what Jesus taught for them. They do not understand that Christianity is a corrupted version of the teachings of Jesus which were perpetrated by St Paul to sell his new religion to the capitalistic Romans which he was one of.
@ Social - you are welcome, amazing this hub is still be read 2 years after it was written.
@ Myname - I suspect Jesus was simply a Rabbi (teacher) attempting to change the face of a large community. The corruption of his teachings by Paul are what we contend with today.
Actually Jesus was inconsistent about things and also refered to the old testement when it talked about him. There are so many lessons to learn in the old testment but if he would have expressed people would understand that even with the miricles the death and the resurection he was not the massiah. The messiah is the book itself and if read from beginning to end anyone can understand the main lesson expressed as God's intend. Jesus actully clouds the issue with his presence.
@John - clearly you did not read the Hub had you done so you would have commented in context.
Valentine, thanks for spreading logic. Although, I'm not sure Christianity was about compassion. And if it was, it was directed towards particular people, not all. Also, the bible is known to be sexist.
Drew - I think the message of Jesus was about the compassion. The message of Paul, which in truth is the framework of the Christian religion is not so much about compassion and is certainly a far cry from the original message. Paul being separate from the original Apostles, never having met Jesus in person or having heard him preach in my mind he was an impostor a poser, nothing more than a good TV evangelist really. I suspect Paul saw an opportunity and seized on it.
and in ALL the examples you have given, Jesus was speaking to INDIVIDUALS, and not the Government. YOU must rethink your stance, Valentine.
I believe that the best system is one that combines the best of many systems: Socialism, free market capitalism, democracy as well a strong central government.
Take our form of government.
The western free market capitalist system is dysfunctional dying system.
The United States and Europe are on economic life support: high unemployment, a meltdown in the housing market, stock markets gyrating out of control,a failed banking system, a widening gap between the rich and the poor, a dysfunctional democratic government unable to make decisions, Trillions of dollars in government debt, families living off credit cards, dismally low savings rate, anemic growth in GDP, crumbling infrastructure, failing educational system, loss of manufacturing power, big trade deficits
Now compare that with Socialist China: explosive GDP growth of 9 percent per year for the last 32 years, the fastest growing economy on earth, a growing middle class with Per capita income nearly quadrupling in the last 15 years, trade surpluses year after year, a strong manufacturing and export economy, huge foreign investment, skyrocketing worker productivity of 3.9 percent growth year after year, no government debt, rising wages, huge investment in infrastructure, the biggest dam in the
world, the longest bridge,the largest car market in the world, the most smart phones in the world, high speed rail projects, a strong government controlled banking system insulated from the debt crisis in Europe and the US.
In just 32 years China's managed socialist-capitalist economy and strong central government has taken China from a third world poverty stricken nation to the fastest growing economy on earth...now
ranking number two behind the US...and, as economist all over the world predict ...soon to be number one.
Socialist China with its strong central government and managed capitalist system has run rings around Free market capitalist western countries over the last 30 years. It's living proof that a combination of strong central control and free market capitalism need to be combined to create a prosperous government that can lift a nation out of poverty and create the fastest growing economy in just 3 decades.
Brad thanks for stopping in. You are right on many levels in your assessment. I suspect the US citizen would never accept, rightfully, the level of control the Chinese government displays. However, there is certainly something to be said for their remarkable success.
Drew- The Bible isnt sexist if your refering to the submit to your wives part... read a little further and you will find, and men submit also. Its a two way street but most people take it out of context. Also, Paul did meet Jesus in person, one of the few people in the Bible to see Jesus in his glorified state. Overall nice article, well written
Bob, that is where faith comes in isn't it? One must believe in Paul's statement of what he saw. One must "buy" that Paul wasn't simply a snake oil salesman who saw an opportunity and jumped on it. Since the message of Paul is definitively different than the Gospels of those who walked in the 'live' footsteps of the Live Jesus, I will stand by my original statement, Paul never met Jesus of Nazarene; Glorified or otherwise. Paul was the first and original snake oil salesman who corrupted the teachings and created a Church that has since that time harmed many.
I appreciate you liked the article. By the way I think most people take most of the Bible out of context depending upon where their life is at any given point in time.
I really enjoyed your HUB and agree with you completly. It amazes me how many Christians use their religion to judge others. It seems that many see Christianity as a buffet where they can pick the things that are in line with their own beliefs but leave the ones that they do not understand or want to believe. It seems so clear in the teachings of Jesus that the main theme is love. He said that if slapped to turn the other cheek, to love your enemys. Religion has no place in politics, but if you are going to profess your religious views as a politician at least be consistent. Obama is not a socialist, and it sickens me the way he has been demonized by so many. To ask What would Jesus do? and then say slap you silly shows exactly how so many Christians think. People have been brainwashed to believe that socialism is the government coming in and taking over their entire life. I see it more as the government controlling things that should not be run for a profit, like healthcare.
Thanks TNL, I see you read some of the discussion as well as the Hub. Actually, I think that was one of my favorite comments of all; for all the reasons you mentioned.
I disagree that Paal was a "snake", he was a prominent pharisee and of high rank in the Jewish community. To give up this position to teach and preach about Jesus and give up all your money and give up your actual life for Jesus is not jumping on anything. Paul had nothing to gain for what he did, no fortunes or riches. If anyhting he gave up everything just to be able to spread the word of Jesus. Also he was fact checked by many of the deciples and the deciples agreeded with his teachings and sent his to preach.
Bob you have your version and you are welcome to it. My version is a bit different and based on my study.
Paul was a misogynist. This is apparent throughout his writings and the Church has carried this message for 2,000+ years. There has been all to much suffering brought about in this world because of the teachings of Paul and the church he founded.
Paul was first a man of violence, this was his background and his underlying personality trait. He brought this with him no matter his "conversion" on the road to Damascus. The church he founded evidences this with the on-going and unforgiving nature of their violence towards those of other nations and beliefs.
There is little written of his family other than he was a free born Roman citizen on his mothers side (Romans 16:13) and of the tribe of Benjamin on his fathers (Acts 23:6 and Phil 3:5). As to him being wealthy and of high rank, where does this come from? He did not gain real prominence until after his conversion, prior to that he was known primarily for his persecution of those who followed Jesus.
Finally, I did not call him a 'snake' I called him a snake oil salesman and compared him specifically to other prominent televangelists (e.g. Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton)
The only thing not mentioned on this forum is the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that Jesus ever existed.
Even if we did, it would by NO means prove that Jesus was Christ -- which is the very pillar that Christianity as a whole rest on.
Mathew, Mark Luke and John were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John either.
Josephus and Tacitus are not reliable either -- and no serious and objective biblical scholar would consider them so.
We only have stories. Not even a single eyewitness testimony which would be useless anyways since we have all kinds of people living today who can give their eye witness testimony of UFO abductions, pink unicorns, tooth fairies etc.
Imagine a man that could walk on water, give sight to the blind, bring the dead back, come back from the dead and then bodily ascend to some other realm -- and no government or historian in the world thinks that it is worth putting it on paper at the time of its occurrence. If something like this was true, it would have traveled the world on winged donkeys like wild fire.
All of the above mentioned miracles were attributed to Sai Baba died April of this year in India, yet it didn't warrant 2 hours of cable TV time, ever. Wonder why? Because he was a con artist.
The only thing we have is 2000 years of brainwashing, indoctrination, killing, murdering and destroying countless lives in the name of a vile celestial dictator and an incredible amount of scientific illiteracy (or just illiteracy in general) and ignorance.
There is a very good reason why the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders refers to fundamentalist beliefs as a MENTAL DISORDER! Fundamentalist Christians give a whole new meaning to delusional and magical thinking. In the U.S., 75% of population are Christians and just about 50% of the entire population are creationists. This alone makes the United States the largest loony bin on the planet -- the 8th wonder of the world that you can see from the moon.
By the way, the biblical Jesus is the very definition of socialism and communism. There are plenty bible quotes given above to put it to rest but how would Christians know that when 98% of them never read the bible.
Mathew 17:20 says that if you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could move mountains. Have you ever heard anyone ever moving mountains by speaking to it? So, I think we can also safely rule out the idea that Christians have any amount faith whatsoever. All they do is flapping their gums.
Great article and responses! Loved it!
Ah Saburius you made me smile this morning, thank you.
Love this so much!
Thanks Kameron. This one for some reason continues to draw both ire and accolades though it was written nearly 3 years ago.
Hey I realize this is an old article, but I wanted to point out 2 things to the others here:
1.) Socialism is working fine in actually every first world country except for the United States of America. USA is the only country without an universal health care system and leaves 52 million Americans uninsured. American health-care is ranked I think 36th in the world. Does this make America 'The best country in the world'? No! If this is what freedom is, I don't want it.
2. Nazi-Germany, Post-Soviet Union, or whatever Americans think of 'Communism' is not real communism. This is how the stage to communism works. 1.) Abolishment of Capitalism
2.) Advocate Socialism
3.) Keep on advocate Socialism, then abolish the state (the government).
Therefore, Communism is NOT fascism or dictatorship or whatever you guys seem to name it. Fascism is RIGHT-WING. Communism is LEFT.
Ryo - getting the terminology correct is the always the problem.
This is a well written article with good discussion that continues to draw in commentators. Kudos to the author for sparking the discussion and continuing to contribute to the variety of criticism while maintaining decorum. I think you were able to lay out thoughts of mine in much clearer terms. I've spent time living in other Social Democratic countries and talking about these things. Interesting to see how others view our country and also what we can learn from them. No system is perfect but we must strive for balance and the betterment of all lest we sink our ship and go down with it. I work in higher education and it continually saddens me to see less and less Americans in our programs because this means we're not interested as a whole in our future, to educate the young and make them innovators, leaders, or just ready for the workforce overall--if there even is a workplace when they come of age. Even if with the snap of a finger we could have more technically minded high schools and 2 year colleges for creating a strong workforce, I just don't see the jobs being there given the economic and political climate. Sad that we as a whole nation are so short-sighted and that we continue to let the short-sighted lead us.
Kalavinka, this is one of my biggest issues - education that is. Thank you for your comments.
Note to BJC -- You are incorrect; the author is not taking Scripture out of context. Jesus was a socialist. He spoke out against unnecessary wealth and he spoke out alot about meeting the needs of the poor and needy. Those who are lazy and don't work, Jesus said, don't qualify as poor and needy, but only those who work. Please read your Scripture and judge rightly. thanks.
Thank You !! Thank you .... It is always so difficult to get people to see beyond their noses Amm. But that is what is wrong with perception versus reality isn't it?
Jesus was a socialist (much clearer in your description than the scary title) is only a drop in the bucket. Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, born in a barn, a refugee upon birth, unusual from youth, whittier than his parents, a step-son to his legal father, rogue to both the religious and politically correct establishments (even today), an alien or citizen of another world (so he claimed), the King of an intangible kingdom, a willing scapegoat for the transgress of others, abandoned by his real Father (confessed), murdered by his own countrymen, and physically interacted with by those who knew him even after his death a myriad of times. Despite this humbling unorthodox background … Jesus of Nazareth has had a bigger impact for better AND for some for worse than any other person in the history of mankind as we know it both physically and maybe soon, one day, to evidenced by all… spiritually. God knows, eh…. and, either you know him or you know of him. Amazing, the amount of free agency each individual has. Reading this all has inspired me me…. but so has all the NDE proofs spilled out on YouTube as well. Answer: NO to the title.… I believe he is slightly more that that. Like Lewis said, either he was a very very good liar, or a crazy lunatic o r the Lord he made himself out to me (in a very humble setting and profound exit).
Nikoniko - he was all that and you are correct perhaps far more. What he was not though, at least in his lifetime on earth is, cruel, selfish, self-serving.
But this was not actually written to debate the merits of Jesus. It was instead written to identify the definitions of Socialism and the fact the current POTUS is not a Socialist.
Sorry for that and also for writing me in place of be. And, those were not merits I stated but rather disadvantages or complications (much the opposite).
So may I ask... what it is that you are doing is comparing Obama to Jesus? Smile ( ^.^ )(^.^ )
That is funny and rather witty to take three years to disclose and get so much derision in the comments way up above.
I apologize if I am thick but I did read the whole thing the night before last and it took some time... but can you really compare the two?
What you may be implying in your last reply is that Obama is or was selfish and self-serving at some point? Or at least that is what I read into it as I hear from "techy" people (mostly Democrats) who did vote him in. They want more free agency and freedom of information to flourish and be developed in our 3M and not to be controlled or so monitored. Doesn't everyone who has the power to vote?
Bear with me as I try to discover a definition for this kind of socialism here.
There seems to be more and more of a controlling type of socialism NOT owned or ruled by small local communities in each area, but rather a control that is regulated either by an elite group or a greed driven community somewhere hidden or not yet fully exposed.
Is this not the beginning of a kind of socialism that looks more like a modern controlling mechanism when standing on the outside looking in?
Is that more similar to socialism or fascism?
And if a frog is in increasingly warmer and warmer water, will it notice the subtlety in order to jump out?
Going out on a far limb here, could I not say that BOTH political parties could be guilty of these "crimes" or deeds?
OK, maybe I got this all wrong somewhere…. let me start over.
If we actually lived in a world that was ruled by "popular" vote then wouldn't "WE THE PEOPLE" be able to vote and make instantaneous differences in every small thing WITHOUT THE WOOL BEING PULLED OVER OUR EYES through the influence of big money or big brother? Technically it could be possible, but physically is it not?
….. Isn't that what you meant yourself when talking about distributing the wealth fairly and properly through a just health care system that people themselves could vote in (in every detail if there physically existed an accurate way to monitor a "popular" vote moment by moment)? That would not work, uh? I give up. So how in the world could the entire USA come to the point where everyone could LOVE each other as much as they love their own self so that a popular vote would actually work in the USA and not be manipulated by power and greed?
Isn't there a devisable way to keep only those public servants in office who are honest and rid all others? Napoleon Bonaparte said,
“Absolute power has no necessity to lie, it may be silent – while responsible governments obliged to speak, not only disguise the truth, but lie with effrontery.” ( I so hope that is not true)?
So what is a government called that is led and ruled by those with the power of money to manipulate the truth or have a selfish power to dissemination such information (information that is not for the good and health of the general public)?
Dear Valentine,
what is the macro definition of modern socialism and how effective is it?
Let me take a step back….
I once lived on the east side of the curtain (not in East Asia as I am not that old), but socialism does not have to kill one's spirit. I observed it firsthand. Those with a "free" spirit in such circumstance must not (or can not ) work for the state.
Jesus didn't work for the Roman state nor work as a public official within the Jewish community. As far as I can remember, neither did he impede his privileges/rights over others outside of the temple (his LOCAL community). Obama has to do all these and more. So do all other US public servants. They, by choice, force themselves into such decision making circumstances where they place themselves over others in a commanding way. That sounds like a place I would to stay far away from, even if I were wiser (smile). The original analogy of how Obama and Jesus are both socialists or neither one are socialists falls apart as there are no similarities here.
Jesus could work within a social Jewish structure here on earth…. a system that advocated that the means of production, distribution, and exchange regulated by a small community within a larger one. Maybe in modern society this kind of socialism exists in Switzerland as the smaller Cantons have seemingly more power to rule and govern their immediate community than the actual top branches of government.
In the US, does not everything come from the top down? Do "WE the people" actually have any power or is it just an illusion of power to "choose" what happens next? In this way, socialism (or other words I am not sure how to describe) may exist in the US like I had observed it as a similar controlling force behind the Iron Curtain (constantly controlling and monitoring). It is happening more and more each and every day. It could happen that a transition could occur within the US that a "socialistic" monster could rise its head and overthrow our former economic system as we know in in the US in favor for a more radical kind of socialism that we could never imagine. If that were to happen, would not all of the public servants in the past decade or two be responsible for its demise? And if these public servants where held responsible to some degree for the US becoming no better than the Iron Curtain then could not all of these public servants (all of them) be "Premature-socialists" or Socialists to some degree? Basically, even if it did happen, there are no words in the English language to describe these transitions or such terminologies that would fit well until someone new coins some revolutionary terms months or even years after these events occur.
Who knows? Like you say in America, "God knows!"
Ms. Valentin, please post some answers. It has been three years and you seem to know more than what you are supposedly asking. Surely your comments are much more articulate. Thank you for your input.
Nikoniko - the crux of the article was not to compare the current POTUS to the Christ, it was only to show that most Americans have little understanding of Socialism or the teaching of Christianity.
One actually has little to do with the other. The one is a economic system as described in my article. The other is a social system with ethical / moral overtones that has over 2,000 years been turned into a Religion with political heft.
I don't know that I do have the answers. I do believe though that successful nations all have an element of socialism, including the US; no economy can be entirely socialist and be successful. A society that is built entirely on the art of selfishness can also not be successful.
I surely do not know the answer, what I do know is the US is faltering.
Valentine, apparently you need to use the Oxford Dictionary to research the difference between Charity and Socialism. Clearlt, in every example you gave from the Bible, Jesus advocated CHARITY. He never told the poor the were "entitled" to the rich mans money, nor did he ever tell the rich man he HAD to give it to them. He only suggested that a good Christian would give to the poor. That's CHARITY Valentine. Duh!!!!
You know Shorty - apparently you need to check on manners as clearly you weren't raised with any.
But, The Christ also said render unto Caesar (Taxes) and in his time Tithing was the norm at a very significant percent of the entire amount of earnings no separation of what was income, what was investment the Temple got the due off the top. The temple then distributed to the poor of the nation.
The Christ advocated charity beyond tithing.
Might want to get a bit better educated on that book and the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments. Try to avoid discussions on what this means with those who are clearly more informed than you.
He did not only suggest, by the way he explained clearly that Charity was a requirement to enter his kingdom.
Finally, he was speaking to the Jews and Pagans at the time (hint there was no such thing as a Christian).
Found your web site after hearing on the Patriot Sirus Station "Was Jesus a Socialist"? First words out my mouth were, Well, yes he was! Really enjoyed "your opinions". They mirror alot of mine. Makes you think. Makes you investigate. Makes you grow. I thank you for that. Go and grow!!!
Sheryl - thanks for visiting and commenting.
You rock!
Very Thought Provoking. Thanks for sharing this analysis Valentine. It is such a shame how we view socialism as almost demonic; at least as it is presented in our media. How can anyone that claims they are Christian turn their backs on those that are less fortunate? It is very interesting the lenses that we all view life through and how the vary based on our personal experiences with the universe. Bravo for writing this article.
Short and gratefully accepted.
In this new cycle of elections when it seems the soapboxes have grown taller, the name calling more ugly and the divisions in this nation even wider I am compelled to return to this and other topics. I hope you will return as well.
Thank You Tony. I find myself increasingly dismayed by the tone and tenor of our nation. As I said in an earlier response, I suppose I will return to this forum and further analysis of this and other political subjects as we dive deeper into the political season. I hope you will return as well.
I look and see this comment about how there aren't any good socialist countries around. Well, I'm pretty sure France is doing well for a Socialist country.
Hi John. Actually, like many European countries France is experiencing some economic woes. Also, though France has elements of socialism, again like many European countries, within their economic model, they are in fact a Republic and their economy is based on Capitalism and Trade.
I find it curious how you mention portions of the bible to support your theory that Jesus was a Socialist, However when the topic of abortion comes up you don't reference the bible anymore. It seems pretty clear with "thou shall not kill", however all I got from that was it's a womans right..?
also, Congrats on keeping up with this for the past few years, I can see some comments are from a ways back and it seems you have responded to almost all of them, I must admit if I had setup this blog I would not have been so consistent.
Tim, as with anything the abortion can be a difficult subject. The fact is this particular Hub wasn't written to discuss Abortion and I repeatedly stated that. In fact, I repeatedly stated the entire premise of the Hub was not really to discuss whether The Christ was a Socialist either, but rather to define Socialism in the context of whether the current POTUS was or was not one.
Thou shalt not kill could of course be used to defend the anti-abortion stance. It would however not be the perfect defense unless you believed life begin at conception. Not every person does, however if this is your position you would also have to take the position that all hormonal birth control and the IUD are also forms of 'murder'.
I tried hard to stay away from this discussion on this Hub. For just the reason above.
You are right the comments go back a long ways. But if you start a Hub, it is the responsible thing to keep it up. Thanks for commenting.
Of course Jesus was the true first socialist. You guys who oppose this statement are thinking purely of "socialistic societies" which weren't orchestrated properly. No person on earth, because of their sin, can orchestrate a socialist community properly. Most people are greedy and many people are lazy. Jesus, in the Bible, tells us how to have a true socialistic community. Just read your Bible -- it's clear. It's Not about supporting abortions as Valentine wants to talk about incessantly. Jesus tells us not to kill. If she wants to disobey that, then she can proceed at her own risk and her own money. I certainly should Not fund it in the least, so please stop your abortion stuff.
Jesus tells us to work hard, help those who are truly in need (not those who will not work, not those who squander, not those who are selfish).
One reader said to ask someone who lives in a socialist society. I lived in a socialist society and no, of course, it did not work well because, again, people are greedy, people are lazy, etc. Jesus speaks out against those things. True socialism will be in heaven. Sounds like some of you may not like heaven.
Bogsvenzna - I approved your comment only because you left it and I felt the need to respond.
1. At no time have I stated my personal position of Abortion.
2. At no time have I brought up the issue of abortion, only responded time and again that this hub was not about the issue of abortion.
3. Most people are not greedy, some people are certainly greedy.
3. Not all people believe in heaven, the Christian Utopia or the Bible as written.
Thank you for you comments and your mis-characterizations of my comments though. Next time, it would be great if you could attempt to only comment on your own positions though and try not to restate mine.
I have been reading through the hub and have found it to be both entertaining and educational. As a product of the Baby Boomer generation I, like most "red-blooded" and "patriotic" Americans, was instinctively indoctrinated to believe some "irrevokable, unquestionable, absolute truths". Here are a few:
1. Christianity is the only true religon
2. The Bible, in it's entirety, is the absolute,literal, and final word of God
3. We were created by God and therefore any other theory of origin was wrong and to be rejected
4. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and were subsequently doomed to spend eternity in hell if the Saviour was not "accepted".
5. communism and Socialism were demonized as the social and political agendas of godless societies and Atheistic in origin.
Unfortunately, this same indoctrination runs very true and deep through the veins of many Americans. It's only been over the last 7 yrs of my life that I have really started to question so many of these dogmatic claims.
For example, I question the greatness and sovereignty of a deity who's exclusive representation on the earth is through one small people. The Bible is, I believe written exclusively by Jews. I am baffled by their claims all throughout the OT to be battling and conquering lands because they were given "divine right" because they were God's chosen and the land, any land where the sole of their foot would trod, was theirs.
Is there any wonder that all throughout history they seem to be involved in some sort of conflict?
Such claims to be the "exclusive children of God" could be, at the very least, interpreted as arrogant and inflamatory.
So I have began to ask questions. I question the establishments of politics, religion, etc. because I was raised to blindly believe and accept what I was told. I refuse to pass this type of "blind faith" mentality on to my children.
I encourage them to ask questions about everything. I challenge them to question all of the sacred cows that I was tought would invoke the wrath and judgement of God. My rationale to my children is that if God exists, and if he is great, then your questions will do more to impress him than to provoke him. Afterall, as father I am thrilled when my children question me.
I am American, but have grown increasingly weary with the "good ol' boy" blind patriotism that I see in our country. I detest what we do throughout the world in the name of freedom and democracy. I am increasingly outraged at the autrocities committed by our government abroad to secure the corporate interests of the ruling class.
The frightening thing about it is this. Most of the people that are taken in by the whole "christian nation" concept really do believe that America's military actions are justified because we defend Israel, the chosen people of God!
OK, so I have ranted a bit, but as a father of six children, i wonder what they will have to face if our nation continues on this path.
On a personal note, I have come to believe that if there is a God, then he is in fact the greatest Evolutionist, and that Jesus would definitely be considered a Socialist today!
Welcome to the world of poke the bear EastTexan. I personally have lived here for quite some time. I was indoctrinated early and often with a really big stick sometimes. But being the hard head that I was I poked and prodded till I, like you came to the conclusion there was something wrong.
I hope you will check some of my other posts, perhaps you will find other subjects to add your rants to. I enjoyed this one.
I can't remember which article you wrote that the subject of prayer in schools was such an issue but I found this on somebody's Facebook page as their favorite quote and decided to make it my favorite quote. (That way the next time this comes up I'll have it readily available to post, lol! Here's the full quotation:
Matthew 6:5-6-7.....5 - And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
6-But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
7- "When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again.
PS I've already had to leave Facebook once tonight because some idiot was defending Rush--but not after making a few comments, lol!
Love that one and have frequently posted it as my status on FB, just to yank peoples chains.
Patti I totally agree with you on the whole prayer in school issue. I wonder sometimes if religious people really understand the true consequences of asking the government to rule on so many social and personal matters. Michael Reagan said something along these lines about prayer in schools. Parents should not be so concerned as to whether or not their children are allowed to pray in school, but rather should be praying with their children at home before they go to school.
Asking the government to rule on personal moral issues and to create laws that regulate any matter that should remain private is dangerous and tears at the fibers of the Constitution.
I get weary of hearing the same old rhetoric every election season. Abortion, gay marriage, and gun rights! How shallow are the American people? Can we not move beyond these same 50 yr old debates and began to focus on issues that will strengthen us as a nation?
But, truth be told, there are approx. 180 million Americans that only need to hear what a candidate believes on these surface issues alone to give him\her their vote.
I wonder how many evangelicals really want the government coming through the front doors of their churches and dictating what they can and can't teach their parishioners. Little do they know that by getting so politically involved and demanding that the court rule in favor of their religious convictions they are one step closer to total government control. At which time they would cry "Persecution!!!!" in a loud voice! I am reminded of a saying that says something about having our cake and eating it to!
So long as they are in agreement with their theology it will be fine, the problem is when they aren't.
Every election season we hear the same tired social battles rather that focusing on what is critical. It is the same rot, after the election it goes away. It is silly and ignorant, it divides us.
Socialism doesn't work in practice???
Socialist nations today: Norway, Denmark, Sweden...
Happiest nations in the world: Norway, Denmark, Sweden...
Coincidence?
Hardly.
The issue of whether or not Jesus was a socialist is a complicated one. A more simple issue is that the "Christian extremists" in the USA are no more Christian that Bin Laden. The Gospel of Matthew is clear: You know them by their fruits. There are few, if any, Biblical fruits among the extreme right-wing freaks of the USA who call themselves "Christian". They are a laughing stock.
I once had a conversaton with a Christian Fundamentalist (extreme right wing, Republican, Tea Party Freak; you know the type). To every Biblical quote I used to back up my point, his response was: "You're using that passage out of context". No wonder parts of the USA are still in the dark ages.
The G - it is difficult to show facts to those who will not see. The only answer the statement above is 'yeah but they pay 50% taxes"! You know, we in the USA would rather suffer the fires of Hell (for others) than pay for those with less to be lifted from extreme poverty.
Gareth the interesting problem is the lack of understanding you will always find on the Right when it comes to the Bible. My favorite is always in discussing OT with them, nothing applies of the Law except those specific sections having to do with the 'abomination' of homosexuality, odd. Nothing else applies, nothing.
Nice history lesson, but keep in mind that calling Jesus a socialist is like comparing apples to oranges. Jesus was born and raised a Jew and abided by ancient Jewish traditions until the Roman Empire intervened when he spread the word of God to his disciples while introducing Christianity to the world. Also, the Bible clearly refutes the insinuation that Jesus was a liberal free-thinker. For example, read the verse from John 18:33-19:11 which describes what Jesus had said to the Roman Emperor Pontius Pilot. Jesus did not intend to influence the government, but he did intend to influence the people who needed salvation. In other words, he was a only a prophet and none of the prophets listed in the Bible (Luke, Matthew, Moses, etc.) intended to change the government, but to instill religious faith for all salvation-seeking people.
Sean - Jesus actually had no intention to introduce Christianity.
Next, as with every social change which indeed Jesus represented it is absolutely a change that affects all parts of society. To think otherwise is to not understand how society works or how people within society work.
Finally, the real issue is how his teachings effectively incorporated into life today. Today, he would be a humanitarian and a socialist based on his teachings. This is what one must look at. Certainly he would not support those who corrupt his teachings to enrich themselves.
You make so many valid points, Valentine. Your knowledge is amazing and inspiring. Keep up the good work. American needs more like you.
Sean - whether or not Christ was a socialist is an interesting debate. And Valenine makes some stunning points. But I am certain of one thing: Christ certainly wasn't a right-wing, war-mongering, anti-immigration, pro-military, pro-gun, pro-execution capitalist. The New Testament is clear: people should be as Christ-like as possible. Yet the Tea Party Freaks and other right-wing "Christians" do not show the fruits as required in Matthew's Gospel. To hear some Tea Party Christians, you would think that American Exceptionalism is a Biblical theory.
Jesus was not a socialist. No where in the bible does Jesus talk about the government forcing the people against their will. He talks about freedom of choice and encourages us to live our lives a certian way, but he in no way talks about 'government involvement' as the way...
Good talk, i agree with almost everything you say except the abortion thing. Also, i'd say Jesus was more a 'libertarian'-socialist, than a strict socialist.
....oh, i forgot to add, Jesus wasn't the first, Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) espoused and taught essentially the same ideas centuries earlier.
I should probably add that i don't think Obama is a particularly good President, but he's definitely not a socialist in the strictest sense of the term. Jesus, however, definitely espoused libertarian-socialist and egalitarian-socialist ideals in many of his teachings, but he put them in a personal/spiritual light. Most people won't understand or accept this fact about Jesus, but it's the truth.
Jonthepatriot - clearly you haven't read the Bible or you would be aware of the Teachings and the fact it isn't an issue of free will at all, it is a 'my way'. Further, The Christ certainly talks about and even engages in Government involvement you simply fail to understand it as such since you fail to understand historical positioning. The Temple, was in fact the 'government' of the Jews of the time and in fact The Christ took great offense at their behavior.
Read again, just a suggestion.
Drewman - Jesus was neither actually, but that was hardly the point was it? The point was that the current President is also not a Socialist.
The Christ had firm ideas on personal responsibility and social responsibility. They weren't new, but rather they were his interpretation of the long-standing and original teaching of his own religion and culture (Jewish). The problem was of course, was his own people (much like the Christians of our time) have fallen so far they needed their chains yanked.
As for my "abortion" thing, what could you possibly disagree with? I never state my opinion other than to say I believe in choice. Choice is simply the right to say "yes" or "no". To take away any persons right to say "yes" or "no" is to disenfranchise that person from participation in society and in decisions over their own health and life.
As for Buddha, you are right he espoused many similar ideas. However, it would not matter to those in the US since the majority of those in the US claim Christianity and would not understand references to Buddha. Further, Buddha did not take on an entire culture but rather he withdrew from that culture, discarding his right to inheritance and leadership (having been born into the royal family). His position within society was dramatically different from that of The Christ and thus his world view different. Finally, Buddha did not at anytime push a change that would reclassify the caste system except within religious orders (thus could not claim the socialist title).
Great article with some very good points that point some truths if people are willing to open their eyes. Here is a link to an article that I think you may find very interesting and enlightening: http://www.biblicalfreedom.com/images/newnav/pdf/e
It is a fairly lengthy article that goes more indepth regarding not only who Jesus was but also what the Old (OT) and New Testaments (NT) say about how we are to treat each other, including the downtroden, and the obvious economic system we should strive for. Jesus was certainly apolitical but it is undeniable that the greed over people philosophy of the right wing today is not what Jesus would condone. Of course there are things that he would not condone on the left side either but I think their social and economic ideals are more in tune with his even though the execution is certainly imperfect for obvious reasons. One interesting thing this article brings out is to dispel the myth that helping the poor, orphans, widows etc. was not mandated on a national basis but is supposedly all voluntary for individuals. The OT thoroughly debunks this. The tithes were Israel's taxation system. There were in fact 3 tithes in the OT, of which the 3rd one was to specifically take care of the poor - widows and orphans. Tithing (i.e. taxation) was indeed mandated for the nation of Israel and part of that tithing system was to take care of the poor. Yes, this was in the OT but the principles and ideals are still relevant today even for those following the NT.
Of course both the OT and NT required able bodied people to work and for their employers to pay them a fair wage. The above referenced article goes into more detail on this with some interesting and profound Biblical references. This shows that there are principles from both political sides today that are correct and some that are wrong.
I hope you find the "Greed and Oppression of the Poor" article applicable to your "Jesus was a Socialist" article and that it may even provide some enlightment to others on this forum.
Thank you for this, I will read and likely add it to my very long list of reference material.
Jesus was neither what? Further, i agree that Obama isn't a socialist.
I also generally agree with your assessment of present day 'Christians'.
Buddha did in fact speak out against the hypocrisy and wrongs of the Hindu system in the same light that Jesus did against the corruption of the Pharisees. Buddha and Christ are far more similar than dissimilar, is my point.
With regards to abortion, for me personally, it is a moral issue, not a legal one. Abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape. This is the only situation where i feel it would be ok for taxes to cover the procedure. Abortion on demand is flat-out wrong, and should not be legal.
Drewman - Jesus was neither a Socialist nor a Libertarian (sorry). I will have to go back and re-read the writings of Buddha, it has been close to thirty years, I know he took issues with many of the social systems but don't remember enough anymore.
As for abortion, said it over and over on this thread; not really going to discuss it beyond saying it isn't anyone's business but the woman's and her Doctors. Moral and Ethical choices are not ours to determine for another person. Taxes have not paid for abortion in 20+ years, not for any reason; I am okay with that. The morning after pill as part of Rape treatment should be standard on request. Choice is about the right to say both yes and no, there is a point at which yes (or as you say Abortion on Demand) has to be limited to health reasons and medical science tells us that should be 12 weeks after conception. Most abortions happen prior to that. There are many reasons why a woman might seek abortion, it is rarely for convenience. You and I don't have the right to impose our Morals, Ethics or Religious standards on another human being. I will never do so.
I think you misunderstand what i mean by 'Libertarian-Socialist'. You're correct, Jesus was neither 'libertarian' nor 'socialist', he was 'Libertarian-Socialist'. When i say Jesus was libertarian-socialist, i mean only in so far as we can infer from many of his teachings. If you understand libertarian-socialism, and you know Jesus' teachings, you can easily see the correlation. He was also many other things, however, i was merely addressing your label of 'socialist' and pointing out that Jesus' teachings are more in line with 'libertarian-socialism' than they are with strict socialism.
As regards abortion, i am not imposing my morals on anyone. Murder is universally wrong. I know where Jesus of Nazareth (and Buddha) would stand on the abortion issue, and i happen to agree with them both.
Drewman - this is why you cannot draw a line on abortion and why I don't discuss it here or elsewhere. If, as you say, it is 'murder' than it is 'murder' all the time. This would include in the case of Rape. If you believe life begins at the point of conception and early stage abortion is 'murder' than you must be against abortion in all forms and in all circumstances, without exception for trauma to the mother or to save the life already in this world (the woman). There can never be wiggle room for moral compassion if one takes a stand that says "I believe X" or "I believe Y", you don't get to say "I believe X is murder except I will make an exception in the case of A".
If you believe life begins at conception and abortion is murder than you must also believe specific forms of Birth Control are also murder, this would include the following:
Morning after Pill (RU486) for Rape Victims
IUD as a safe form of Birth Control
All Hormonal forms of Birth Control
Abortion, the ending of pregnancy has been a part of woman's healthcare for 2000+ years. There are reasons why women end pregnancy, they aren't your or my business.
Medical science has provided us not only a true perspective of formation and viability from conception through to live birth, it has also helped us to understand prevention. Most forms of prevention, in control of women don't prevent conception but instead simply prevent a fertilized egg from implantation in a prepared uterus. In essence causing mini-abortions to happen.
As for the rest, we can go back and forth as to my labeling of The Christ as a Socialist. It was specific and used for a reason, to address the label used by those on the Right in labeling the current President as a Socialist.
I provided the definitions, including Libertarian-Socialist. In fact this being a newer term, I believe if we were to be strict in our definitions The Christ would fall more closely into a Utopian Socialistic pattern.
As i've said, i absolutely agree with you that Obama is not a socialist, and Jesus certainly does show Utopian-Socialistic tendencies in his teachings, i agree with you there as well. Just as a side, 'Christian-Socialism' and 'Christian-Anarchism' are social-political-economic philosophies that grew out of Jesus' teachings. They are both forms of libertarian-socialism. However, i don't believe that this truth/fact gives power to anyone claiming socialism, or using it as an excuse to push for socialism. What many people don't understand about true socialism is that it is not a way of life that should ever be forced on people, it is a philosophy that begins in the heart and works best on a personal level. What falsely passes as socialism today is actually nationalist statism, and has nothing to do with real true socialism.
With regards to the abortion issue again; RU486, IUD, and hormonal BC are not on par with the actual physical act of abortion. It takes 48 hrs for conception to occur, ergo RU486 is not destroying a fetus/baby since it is only used/effective within this window. IUD and hormonal BC prevent conception in the first place and so ergo again no abortion has actually taken place. Preventing conception is not abortion. Also, i will acknowledge that i see the contradiction in my stance on the special exception of allowing abortion in the case of rape , but it is the one exception that i feel is morally acceptable, and should be left to the woman. However, i feel that even this situation should have limits. A woman should be required to make the decision within the first trimester.
You are incorrect in what the IUD and Hormonal BC do, they do not prevent conception. Conception is when sperm and fertilize egg, that is actual conception. Implantation is when the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, this only takes place if 'conception' is successful. Thus all forms of Hormonal Birth Control and the IUD are in fact abortifacients. Hormonal BC and the IUD do not prevent fertilization, e.g. conception they only prevent successful implantation.
The above is one of the reasons Fundamentalists and Catholics take issue with all forms of Hormonal Birth Control and the IUD.
As for the morality of abortion. I will say this only one more time. You are welcome to your morals. You are not welcome to impose them on another person unless that person is within your control (juvenile under your care). Women are not less than others within this society, certainly not less than a Zygote, Blastocyst or even the 30 day post ovulation Embryo. To think otherwise is to diminish every woman who has ever contributed to the betterment of society as a whole or your life personally.
As for the exception of morality, there can't ever be one. A thing can only be right or wrong, it can't be right some of the time but we will make an exception under certain circumstances. If you believe abortion is murder and women have less value than their uterus, than this 'moral' stance must apply to all circumstances or it can't apply to any circumstance and women must be afforded their right to make moral judgement over their own life and their own decisions in all cases.
To suggest that i'm saying women, as people, have less value than their uteruses is patently ridiculous lol, i'm saying no such thing. I understand full well how BC works, and yes, they do infact prevent conception 'the vast majority of the time'. While it's true they have the added ability to act as abortifacients as well, more than 99% of the time they prevent conception in the first place. IUDs prevent sperm from being able to enter the egg by immobilizing the sperm usually before it ever reaches the fallopian tubes, and/or by releasing a hormone that thickens the mucus in the cervix making it virtually impossible for sperm to enter. It is disingenuous to equate an actual abortion of a fetus with the pathology of BC within 24 hours of sexual intercourse. My main point is that unchecked abortion on demand is wrong...period. To argue in favor of it is morally reprehensible imo. BC is not of the same nature as abortion.
Drew we are done with this discussion. You have your point of view and your welcome to it.
Birth Control in all cases prevent pregnancy. At what point in the process and whether this constitutes abortion or simply prevention, hasn't ever been questionable except in rare cases. I will tell you now that I happen to agree that it is not an abortifacients (except RU486), in fact that it is as medical science has told us simply a preventative. What I have been doing is forcing the issue through use of many anti-choice / anti-planned parenthood / anti-birth control disinformation tactics. Similar to the same tactics used to argue ensoulment and life begins at conception or the value of zygote is greater than the value of a fully grown woman. Which is what you argue when you say a woman should not have the right to determine for herself whether an abortion in the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy is the right answer in her life.
Your main point is your opinion based on your judgement and your value system has greater value than a woman's. Your moral judgement has greater value than a woman's judgement has over her life and health, that is what you are saying and thus you are saying your value her uterus and the product of her uterus over her. You are welcome to your moral stance, it is yours. Here is my point:
Don't want an abortion? Don't have one and don't have unprotected sex with a woman who might have one due to your irresponsible behavior.
Don't want a child at this point in your life? Don't have unprotected sex with a woman not your wife. You take responsibility for your own protection.
Bottom line? Your morals are your business. Your religion is your business. It is not up to you to impose your morals or your religion on anyone else, certainly not a pregnant woman. This is why we have a Constitution that Guarantees us Freedom of Religion, so you are unable to impose yours on anyone else. That was the intent of our Founding Fathers, read letters from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison to George Washington to Thomas Paine to James Jay, to the Baptist Church to Ben Franklin; read about the intent of the Wall of Separation.
To all - I have entertained far more discussions regarding the Abortion issue (which this Hub has nothing to do with) than I normally would. Guess what, I don't really care about your opinion as to whether a woman is a fully enfranchised adult with the right to determine for herself the outcome of her life, her medical needs or her future.
If you have no comments regarding the Hub, don't comment at all. There are more than enough Hubs on Abortion, both Pro and Con floating about, I am certain you can find one that will entertain your position or your arguments. I won't.
If you comment here, on anything other than the content of the Hub I will simply delete your comment. I won't notify you. I won't comment back. I will simply delete your comment.
For more than two years I have allowed comments that have been rude, abusive and even downright nasty. I have attempted at all times to be courteous and to reply to all comers. It hasn't always been easy. I have been told that I should be slapped, I have even been told if Jesus, the King of Peace were alive and on this earth he would slap me.
I am done. Either come with an informed position, read the actual Hub (rather than the title only) and be willing to discuss the content, or just don't bother.
Peace
Val
Awesome Hub, loved reading the whole thing.
Do you have suggestions, either here or on another hub, on how to fix the current Politico Fiasco?
Thanks for writing (Haters gonna Hate)
BigD
Thank you I am glad you enjoyed it. Honestly I don't know that there is a fix unless we get the Propaganda Machine out of our media.
You could try this one: http://valentinelogar.hubpages.com/hub/fixingitpro
Progressive Political Thinking
It is just what I think but it has some real "fixes" from my perspective.
Typical propaganda. The idea that Jesus was a socialist is laughable. The idea that Socialist have some strong desire to help the poor is ridiculous. Quoting a few Bible verses on Jesus telling people they should help the poor does nothing to show Him a socialist.
Socialism is an economic system and deals with government control. Asking individuals to willingly donate or help the poor IS NOT socialism. I advocate for people to assist those less fortunate. That IS NOT socialism. But funny article. Guess you missed the one about Jesus being an anarchist, huh?
Aztec - just curious, did you actually read or just skim? Since the Hub is actually not about whether The Christ was a Socialist, but instead whether the current POTUS is one.
Jesus is not a socialist. He teaches that people should love and help people, not the government. and, he teaches that people ought to be accountable and responsible, not entitled beggars.
Randy - you didn't read the Hub did you. No indeed you didn't you just read the title and had a knee jerk reaction. You decided you needed to make certain you let me, the author know you didn't agree with the title without bothering to read the Hub, because that is what people do who can't be bothered.
You are one smart cookie and your husband is one lucky man.
Yes, I read the entire hub and it appeared to me that you were asking two questions: Was Jesus a socialist, and is Obama a socialist. Your answer was Jesus 'yes' and Obama 'no'. The people who addressed the first question were just as much in the right as those who addressed the second.
It's true that we have a mixed economic/social system. If it is true that maintaining a specific balance between socialism and capitalism is the ideal, then we must always be on guard against the pendulum swinging too far one way or the other. Many are concerned today that Obama is pushing the pendulum farther left than it has ever been, and doing so to a dangerous extreme. Don't they have the right to say so?
@Johninohio, I did not in fact ask two(2) questions and in fact I did not ask any questions regarding The Christ being a Socialist. I premised the Hub on the 'fact' the teachings of the New Testament, specifically the teachings of Jesus (not the later Paul which was not Jesus) were Utopian Socialism.
I did in fact ask three(3) specific questions, they were all asked at the end of the second paragraph of the Hub. All three of those specifically focused on whether President Obama was a Socialist.
To respond to the 'many are concerned' statement. That is true, many are. It is unfortunate that many in this nation have no understanding of sound economic policy or how the nation actually functions. It is truly unfortunate this nation is full of fearful sheep who have allowed themselves to be led by a handful of bigots and liars. The President doesn't set the economic direction, he makes speeches he works with Congress to push an Administrative agenda, he is our face to the world, he is the Commander in Chief. The fact of the matter is Congress owns the budget, Congress writes legislation and passes it, the President signs it when it is sent to him! This Congress hasn't done anything but sit on their hands praying for the failure of the nation.
Finally, yes people have the right to express their opinions, respectfully. I have supported this Hub for more than two years. I have responded to all comments. I have made every attempt to do so with courtesy. I have not received that same courtesy from those commenting. So now, I take a different approach as you can see from my statement.
Well, technically you're right. You didn't ask whether or not Jesus was a socialist--you asserted it, then provided a great deal of what you thought was evidence, just in case anyone else might think the IMPLIED QUESTION was still unanswered.
Your other questions were about socialism itself, and whether or not Obama is a socialist. However, you provided no evidence to support your claim that Obama isn't a socialist. It appeared that you were assuming that whatever the balance was between socialism and capitalism during Bush's administration, it has been either unaltered or made more capitalist under Obama.
Unfortunately, I must stop here to avoid angering you.
John - you do not and cannot 'anger' me by stating your opinion. I have no issue with disagreement, never have. I only take issue when that disagreement comes wrapped in anger or threats of violence.
You are absolutely correct, I made an assertion regarding the teachings of Christ based on the language of the Bible. I very specifically stated these were all 'Utopian Socialism' leanings, nothing more or less. I also provided the source and definition for each form of socialism.
If you read the comments, you will also find that I take some particular pleasure out of poking the bear. I used the extreme for a reason. All the people have spent so much energy and time calling this President the following:
Socialist (not)
Muslim (not)
Kenyen, as in not American (not)
Are for the most part ignorant bigots. Those talking heads who have continued this dialog throughout his Presidency have simply inflamed an already fearful nation.
This Hub was written two (2) years ago. That is one year into President Obama's presidency. There was not at that time any indication that he was a Socialist. In fact based on his appointments, his on-going attempts to work across the aisle and his continuation of Bush programs including Tax Breaks for Wall Street and the very Wealthy, it was clear at that time he was no where near a Socialist.
Taken one step further, now at this point there is nothing in his Presidency that would indicate he was anything more or less than what I defined him as two years ago. A center Democrat.
@Jim - Thank you
Actually, what I wanted to do was avoid another tedious, fruitless argument with another Obama True Believer. I do appreciate that the original Hub was two years ago, and we had not as yet seen the full measure of the man. Now we have.
Any objective observer would find it obvious that a Jefferson or a Madison he is not. He is a dyed in the wool leftist, and the few things he has done that appear at all to be in accord with this country's republican form of government, and its constitution, have been forced upon him by those portions of that republicanism that still exist.
I'm not interested in going toe-to-toe with you or anyone else about Obama. I'm tired of the battle, as I stated above. November is not far off. Let the people decide.
And no, I don't believe Jesus was a socialist. He was a mystic who's eyes were riveted upon one prize, as he saw it--Getting as many Jews into the kingdom of God as possible, which was later revised by gentile Christians, who didn't want to be left out, into a world wide kingdom of God.
He rejected everything in his world that stood in the way of the kingdom of God, including the distractions of wealth. He and his disciples had nothing against money, because they needed it just like everyone else. (They had a treasurer, after all). Why tell wealthy followers to sell everything and give the community the money, rather than tell them to just walk away from it, if you hate money? Distributing the money as needed avoided any individuals having more than the others, which would be a source of conflict, another distraction from the kingdom of God.
Socialists have always exploited these wealth passages in the NT in order to gain the acquiescence of Christians as they taxed and robbed them of their own wealth "for the good of all". Now, you might say that Christians shouldn't object, since the state, in this regard, is doing the work of Jesus. But how is that possible, when they have demonstrated in so many ways that their character and hearts are nowhere near that of Jesus? Certainly, Jesus never used the threat of retribution to get people to contribute to his cause, but the threat of retribution is at the heart of all government demands.
Interesting take, one that you would think I am unable to see the current President for what he is and two that you believe I am unable to ascertain the Bible old or new for what it is.
I would agree completely that this president hasn't lived up to his campaign promise. In fact he is a great campaigner, an FDR, LBJ, Clinton or Reagan he isn't. He has been unable to ride herd on a Congress that was prepared to see him fail, this includes his own party and then later the 112th. His greatest weakness, he doesn't write legislation and present it to his party to move through Congress instead allowing his party to negotiate to failure.
But, that aside I would be interested in some facts from you that would provide a basis for your contention that this president is more Left than others. My study of Presidents since FDR would say otherwise. In fact my study of Presidents since FDR would say this president is the most Right of Center Democrat we have had in office since FDR, that all Presidents since Reagan have moved slightly more right within their own party actually.
As for the Bible, I think one most read it for content and the times. It is one of the reasons I like the Jefferson Bible, have you read it? There is no religion that doesn't address society and the values of that society, Jesus did so with parables. To pretend otherwise is to ignore core messages.
JohninOhio should have read entirely his sources before posting them here. I have deleted them. Other Hubs, with no citations are not sources. Certainly citing the previously debunked personal relationships are not proofs. Obviously the political stances of parents and other family members are not proofs.
Citing 'disliked' policies doesn't make the administration communist or socialist.
Well, I guess you can rationalize away anything you want. The human mind is an amazing thing. What did I say about debating True Believers?
So long.
arpee christian sabe 2 years ago
I do see Jesus incarnation as an act, involving himself in society, to help and guide us in right living.