I respect your viewpoint, but there is one recurring theme in the Bible that prohibts me from agreement that Jesus would support socialism, and that is the recurring right of man to excercise free will. I guess it really hinges on how you define socialism. If by socialism, you mean a nation VOLUNTARILY shares all of its wealth, then I agree Jesus would support that. But if there is anyone in the nation who is being forced to share his or her wealth, I do not beleive that is consistent with Jesus' teachings.

I do not beleive that Jesus would oppose capitalism outright if he were a man on earth right now. The fact is that capitalism has improved the quality of life and the standard of living for millions of people worldwide. ALL of the modern medical advances were brought about by capitalism! Capitalism has allowed the United States to be the most philanthropic nation in the hsitory of the world as well!

That's how I see it. If social can basically be taken to be "humanist," then Jesus, the ultimate humanist, would support it, is what I'm thinking.

I agree with this also. But people are still forced under a capitalist system, too, is the thing. Moreso, arguably. Most of us just don't think about it because we've grown up under a certain system that we don't really question as a whole, even if we do question certain parts of it. In a system where everything is for sale, the possession of the means to buy it become paramount, as opposed to achieving good works or anything. In this country, you literally buy good works -- that's the only way to accomplish them. You can be charitable about it, but only to the extent that you've managed to acquire money or the things that money can buy (which is virtually anything material) to be charitable with.

Capitalism, socialism, for the most part these are really just the ways that government uses to get people to go to work. It's about organizing the way people are rewarded and/or cared for, like beasts of burden. Because in the eyes of any authoritative government, that's all we are, whether we carry the burden of consumption or labor or war or whatever the authority feels it needs.

And Jesus basically said that the human race is not made up of beasts of burden, or beasts of any kind, but rather human beings who should be treated as such, with respect and dignity.

But you do have such a good point, about the need for the system to be voluntary. But how to accomplish such a thing? Nobody actually has, so far. I'm really looking forward to it, personally.

Millions benefit, but at a cost to billions? That seems to be the way capitalism works.

Jesus was a liberal. He was not a socialist. A socialist belies in taking from those who produce and giving it to those who refuse to produce.

Jesus was a liberal. Like the founder fathers of the United States, Jesus believed in doing the best you can and giving to help others less fortunate than you. He made no statement that can be interpreted by a reasonable person to mean he endorsed taking something from someone by force, so you can claim to help someone else, but really just want it to promote your own power.

I would bet this person doesn't even believe in God and is using scripture he doesn't even believe to make a false point. That to me is a good sign that evil is present in this persons words.

Americans are the most generous people in world history and that generosity has resulted in more people being freed from oppression in the history since the US than at any time in world history. That record has been because the US is a purely capitalist nation, or at least it was before the early part of the 20th century when socialism was rampant and the progressive movement became so popular. This changed many things and none for the better. The US since then has slid farther and farther in socialism and it's ugly cousin fascism.

But Jesus was not a socialist. Jesus was a tolerant compassionate person and that is the opposite of socialism, which produces an entitlement mentality and that is just hate.

In order to support such a notion you would have to show that the billions you are referring to were better off before our capitalism took root. I don't think that is a task you could possibly complete, because they weren't. Its liks saying that cigarettes killed a guy who was hit by a train just bacuse he was smoking at the time it hit him!

Capitalism- a before and after picture.

Before



And after

__________________

"Seek truth from facts"

--Deng Xiaoping

No Marxist would ever deny that fuedalism was a superior system to its successor, capitalism. The reason why particular modes of production break down is due to the fact that productive and technological capacity outstrip the limitations placed on them by the prevailing mode of production within any given society. Thus, our ancient hunter-gatherer nomadic ancestors in pre-history were eventually superceded by the emergence of agricultural societies, the neolithic 'revolution' and the development of more advanced tools that eventually contributed to a surplus. This surplus was then appropriated by a newly developing ruling class which began to emerge for the first time about 10,000 years ago. It wasn't until the development of city states around about 2500 to 2000 BC in the Indus Valley that social divisions along the lines of class became widespread. So civilisation, in the sense of people living in cities, goes back just 4,500 years as symbolized by the pyramids of Egypt and Central America and the tower temples of Iraq (which you have destroyed). The existence of a surplus for the first time allowed some people to be freed from agricultural activities to concentrate on craftwork, preparing for warfare or exchanging local products for those of other peoples.

The pioneering work of Australian archeologist Gordon Childe described the transformation which occured in Mesopotamia between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago as people settled in the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. They found land which was extremely fertile, but which could only be cultivated by 'drainage and irrigation works', which depended upon 'cooperative effort'. However, the downside to human civilization meant that a priveleged minority began to live off the labour of everybody else which was enforced by a state machine. The existence of slavery is palpable proof of this development, not only in Mesopotamia but in many other early civilizations. The only account of human society which comes to terms with the changes I have outlined is the work of Karl Marx in the 1840s and 1850s. Marx put the stress on the interraction between the development of 'relations of production' and 'forces of production'. Human beings find new ways of producing the necessities of life. But these new ways of producing begin to create new relations between the members of the group. At a certain point they either have to embrace the new ways of relating to one another or reject the new ways of making a livelihood. Classes begin to arise out of certain of these changes in making a livelihood. It is the class struggle between the ruled and the rulers which is the catalyst for revolutionary change between one mode of production and another. The latter is necessarily more advanced that the one that preceded it. Capitalism, as a system, is merely the latest in a long line of class divided societies, but it does not represent the 'end of history' as some people have claimed. What capitalism does represent however, is the 'stepping-stone' between fuedalism and socialism.

Do you honestly think that people want a classless society badly enough to go back to extreme poverty?

__________________

"Seek truth from facts"

--Deng Xiaoping

Interesting post

I am only going to tap a couple point ...

1 - is betting on a persons lack of belief a Christian thing?

2 - Are you interpretting kindness with liberalism?

I can and have been kind many time and am no where near liberal!

*** many people here can benefit from Proverbs - Chapter 24 ***

__________________

"A Change We Can Believe In"? Forget the change give me a strong conservative dollar!

One Person Will Get A $25.00 Visa Gift Card on 09/30/2008

White Fox. I somehow anticipated that you were going to ask that question. In my last post, I was at pains to point out that all hitherto class systems are more advanced then the ones they superceded. You are typical of an otherwise intelligent person who nevertheless fails to grasp that socialism, as defined as a classless society, does not mean a return to pre-historical conditions where everyday was a constant struggle for survival for the hunter-gathering societies that existed at that time. Tis is a common misconception.

The reason why capitalism is the most advanced and dynamic system known to man is because productive capacity at the present time in history are at levels unimaginable compared to previous class-divided societies. This means that we have the potential as a human race, unlike at any time previously, to literally feed the entire world and end the scandal of human want. Technological advances have meant that food production far exceeds human reproduction. But the anarchic nature of the system means that rather than the food going to where it is needed, most of it ends up being horded by capitalists as a means of speculative investment or adding to food mountains. This is a scandal that can be ended given the necessary political will.

I am well aware of the Marxist argument that there is now enough to go around due to the Industrial Revolution, I just think it's stupid. The only reason why the Industrial Revolution went anywhere was because people were self-interested. The only reason it continues on is because people are self-interested. Your second argument is ridiculous. Capitalists do not invest in food, and they do not build food mountains. There is no purpose, no benefit to this, and this is pure insanity.

__________________

"Seek truth from facts"

--Deng Xiaoping