Popularity of Socialism Spiking in US; 43 Percent Now Saying It Would Be Good for the Country

a reply to: Puppylove

I 100% agree that what we currently have in place is not true capitalism, but crony capitalism, and lobbyists, corrupt politicians, and lack of accountability for our elected officials are all factors allowing our current system to exploit the masses and allowing the morally bankrupt officials to remain in control.

Getting the money out of politics and holding elected officials accountable, by REWARDING or punishing them for the impact their leadership has on their community would be 2 potential ways to combat the corruption/inequality issues...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LABTECH767

The difference between what Biblical Christian living would be and what socialism is is actual choice. To be perfectly Christian in that manner, everyone in the society would choose to live it perfectly and freely from bottom to top. The poor work to get out of their poverty as much as those with more will give of what they have to see they have the breathing space to do it.

You know perfectly well that is not the idealized life we have because humans are human, and we have the choice to either perfectly abide by God or not. There are plenty of poor people content to live off of the largess of others as much as there are those with more who could give but won't, and many, many people who refuse to walk with God but against Him.

To enact modern socialism, there is no choice involved. It is all done by force. You cannot compel faith anymore than you can compel perfectly Christian living. And forcing anyone to do or be counter to who or what they are only creates resentment or works against the impulse to give they might otherwise have.

You have argued this point several time's but I shall counter, there is no middle of the road you are either hot or you are cold, there are therefore NO part time Christian's - you either are a Christian or you are not, that does not prohibit you from believing in the Lord though or indeed praying to him or him from answering those prayers, he judges by the measure of the individual but as to law in Christianity.

The young rich man whom asked Jesus what more me must do to be saved - go and sell all you own and come and follow me.
Then there are many other tales before Christianity was taken over the Elect Pagan Priesthood of the old Greco Roman empire - you don't think they elected humble christian teachers into those roles any more than they had to the priesthood was a status symbol from before the time of Rome so while they were willing to change there frock's they were not willing to give up there status or else there would never have been Borgia's and the Christian's would still be living according to FIRST Christian teaching's as community's whom shared all wealth in common and looked after one another.

www.biblegateway.com...:1-11

Poor url that is Act's 5 Chapter 1 verse 11 and onward the story of Ananias and Sapphira, note how the Christian's lived in the story together, how all wealth was shared in common - the PEOPLE the CHRISTIAN's were the church it was not money going to pay for a church Organ but for what the CHURCH i.e. THE PEOPLE needed, they were living humbly but had all they needed as they lived and worked exactly like a Kibbutz (when they were not having to practice Christianity in secret and use secret meeting places to hold Mass and talk about Jesus teaching's.

So I put it to you that it is NOT a Choice, you may choose to be a Christian or NOT that is the Choice and the only choice.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Speaking as someone on the low end of the pay scale, the reason so many people don't work is because you make a comparable living as a worker on the low end jobs, which the majority of available work is while losing 90% of your home life as you do not working at all. There's very little incentive to work in the first place.

The better jobs only consist of a small percent of the jobs out there, and getting most of them requires massive debt first with assurance of even getting said job. They require a person to be super ambitious and/or competetive, preferably both.

Capitalism rewards those who fit under being super ambitious or competetive. While most people have some levels of both, few have it in the extremes to succeed in our current society and even if they did, most jobs still fall on the low end and only so many high end jobs even need filling.

Then there's the equality myth, we are not created equal, we do not have equal skills or abilities. Not everyone even CAN perform these high end jobs even if they tried. Not that they should need to since every job no matter how skilled or unskilled is necessary to some degree for society. Many unskilled jobs that everyone poo poos on for being unskilled would cause society to grind to a sudden halt if no one did them. Well until robots take them over, then we have an even bigger problem.

Most people aren't that ambitious they just want a simple life and people actually tend more towards being cooperative than they do towards competitiveness. These are where capitalism falls apart. It penalizes and takes advantage of the average person that makes up most of the population and fills most of the jobs society rests on while rewarding the few people that are more likely to put their needs over others and place more emphasis on competition over cooperation.

Socialism has the opposite problem. In a way they are extremes of each other. Socialism tends to put too much emphasis on equality, which is as I've said, bull#. People who can and are willing to do more and are able to fill the more complex difficult jobs needed by society deserved to be rewarded more for it. Otherwise why work any harder than anyone else. On top of that, what rewards people do get tend to be decided for them, so people lose lots of choice and individuality. While there's emphasis on the greater community there's very little incentive to actually work hard to improve it.

In the case of corrupt capitalism people end up enslaved to the few who have the ambition and competetiveness to rise to the top. That is at least until the people decide in mass they've had enough.

In the case of corrupt socialism the people end up enslaved to the government which controls who gets what for the work they do and how much work is required to get it.

Both lead to people being subjected to the whims of the few. This again is because most people simply aren't that ambitious or competetive. They just want simple lives with their loved ones, and most simply do not have the capabilities to do highly complex jobs or handle the stress that comes with them.

Put most people in capatilasm and they'll fail cause they can't compete nor do they want to. Instead they'll simply resent being kept from their families doing the best they can at the work they are capable of for more hours than they are willing because they and their loved ones will either die or live miserable hopeless lives without it. Society will make great advantages but only the few will truly benefit.

Put a person in socialism and they will often as a whole do the minimum possible as there is no reward for doing more. Even those with competetive or ambitious spirit will eventually lose that spark. As a result society will rarely advance or advance slowly, but what few advances there are, are more likely to be shared by the whole.

We need something more than both, both fail on some major level because neither takes into account the true nature of most people, one puts one type of rare person above all others and the other punishes that rare person and does nothing to incentivise anyone.

People like being rewarded for good behavior. People despise being punished, being punished creates avoidance behavior. We need to start from a state where we're not being punished but gain reward for our contributions.

Having to work for basic survival is punishment since it's no longer really necessary and everyone knows it. So at base we should start with all that free. A home, food that provides basic nutrition necessary for a healthy living and healthcare should be free for everyone. Transportation should either be given to everyone or provided at least to and from work by their employer. All needs should be provided.

All wants should be earned. You want better food or more exotic food you work for it. You want entertainment, you work for it. Want to go on a trip to some vacation spot, you work for it. Want a bigger than minimal living quarters, or one where you decide what's what or how many pets you can have, you work for it. Want pets, you work for it. Etc.

People need positive incentives to work otherwise people just resent it and their stress level is magnified. People need to be able to go to work and have in their mind what good things they are getting for it, not how badly they'll suffer and their lives be ruined if they don't.

We need to move past this crushing misery of existance. It's about time we advance as a society beyond struggling to meet basic needs before we can even begin to gain more.

a reply to: FamCore

Don't you think it's a little unfair to blame capitalisms failures on cronyism while never doing the same for socialism and the versions of it with issues?

Does this not feel a bit hypocritical to you in any way?

There are issues with both that lead to corrupt versions of either. That does not make either inherently corrupt.

Personally I think both are failures as concepts for various reasons I mentioned and we need something better than both.

Personally I'm for capitalism/socialism hybrid where all needs are provided by the state and all wants are earned. Possibly through a subscription method instead of ownership to incentivise working long term with the ability to pay ahead to earn a retirement by paying far enough ahead with the things you really enjoy to stop working and still have them. Maybe even have the ability to earn lifetime subscriptions after paying so much towards it. This combines the strengths of both while eliminating the weaknesses.

We still need to deal with preventing corruption.

a reply to: Puppylove

It's a very real possibility that I need to study my history better, but from what I do know, it seems that there are examples of capitalism that still had corruption, but was more equitable and civilized than any form of socialism has ever been.

Perhaps you're correct and a subscription model would work, however I am a proponent for private property rights and I always have been, even when I had little to nothing in my name. From what I have studied, when the government gets involved in "managing" things, conditions become ripe for manipulation and exploitation. When private citizens and private companies have control over their own operations, yes there can still be corruption and manipulation, however we have also seen how privatized industries can easily outperform an overly-bloated government-run public industry/program.

Because of these observations and my limited knowledge, I don't currently see how socialism can ever be better than capitalism. That's just my 2 cents..

a reply to: FamCore

I'm working on an idea expanding on my idea. Look for the thread in the future. And it does allow for ownership just not in the way we are used to. Am on a phone and limited for time currently bit I think I figured out something potentially awesome.

a reply to: LABTECH767

We can agree that you either are you aren't, but where we disagree is on what the actual teachings mean.

How can we care for our poor brothers and sisters if we all give up everything and become poor ourselves? Are we then to rely on the non-Christian to care for us as they will be the only ones with nothing? How are we to prosper as Christians if we never have anything unto ourselves that can be used to make ourselves prosperous out of which we might generate more to give with?

These are the questions you never answer. Charity is not a communal act, but a personal one. Socialism is strictly communal leaving no room for the personal.

originally posted by: ketsuko
How are we to prosper as Christians if we never have anything unto ourselves that can be used to make ourselves prosperous out of which we might generate more to give with?

Heh. I thought of this:
TV Preacher Asks Followers to Help Buy Fourth Private Jet

Charity begins at home.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I phrased that badly, but if I am not allowed to say ... grow my own tomatoes because I must give it all up in order to be Christian, then how can I give some of those tomatoes to the poor guy over there who needs food?

By prospering myself in growing those tomatoes, not only am I able to feed myself, but I can also give of what I have freely to those in need.

To me the idea of the perfect Christian community was not that no one owned anything, but that all worked and did their best to increase whatever it was they had - fields, vines, sheep, etc. - against the lean times, and if they had extra and neighbor had not enough, everyone with extra gave when they needed to their neighbor in the knowledge that when those hard times came to them, their neighbor would return the favor in kind as needed.

And, of course, part of that prosperity in Biblical times was also increasing beyond what you strictly needed to store against those years of famine for all, too. God flat out warned the Egyptians in a dream that they'd have 7 fat years followed by 7 drought years so they could prepare for it. Joseph interpreted that dream for the Pharaoh.

When asked to explain what socialism is, 43% polled said they have no idea.

a reply to: FamCore

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Blue Shift

I phrased that badly, but if I am not allowed to say ... grow my own tomatoes because I must give it all up in order to be Christian, then how can I give some of those tomatoes to the poor guy over there who needs food?

Oh, I agree. That's why Christianity is an absolutely terrible economic system.

a reply to: Blue Shift

That's because it's not an economic system at all. It's a set of moral principles meant to guide you through life.

If you're looking for a religious system that defines and controls all aspects of life, try Islam which does purport to have some sort of economic system embedded in it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Blue Shift

That's because it's not an economic system at all. It's a set of moral principles meant to guide you through life.

If you're looking for a religious system that defines and controls all aspects of life, try Islam which does purport to have some sort of economic system embedded in it.

I don't have to look that far. Just looking in the Old Testament instead of the New Testament offers that.

I see a lot of people perpetuating their ignorance in this thread pretending we have a capitalist system

www.investopedia.com...

Manority of the capitalist here deluded we have a centrally planned economy thats why the Fed is dropping rates instead of allowing the market forces to work

Does anyone actually care about the truth or are you guys just defending your platitudes?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: BrianFlanders

So you don't give a #, you just wanna throw crap at the wall and see what sticks?


Details matter. Especially when lives and livelihoods are on the line.

Lives and livelihoods are always on the line. It's all just a matter of what path things take from one point to another. Obviously (as I said) you can be a comfortable slave who lives longer, eats better and so forth. But you're still gonna be a slave. The details of it don't change what it is. Like I said. You can choose not to care that you are cursed to a life of servitude and bondage but "it is what it is". It's probably best that you don't care.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Blue Shift

That's because it's not an economic system at all. It's a set of moral principles meant to guide you through life.

If you're looking for a religious system that defines and controls all aspects of life, try Islam which does purport to have some sort of economic system embedded in it.

I don't have to look that far. Just looking in the Old Testament instead of the New Testament offers that.

Ah, Mosaic Law ... not the rules of Christianity exactly. One of the things that so put Christ out was how they lived the letter of the law and not the spirit. Christ came to live that law because no one else could.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: FamCore
Wouldn't it be better to clear all student debt regardless of wealth or social standing upon achieving a previously determined grade?

As a conservative, I have no problem with forgiving the debt but not without some kind of reform of college tuition first. Schools are a business and the have goals to grow just like any other business. Why should we have government pay outrageous tuitions only to make a select few professors rich? Not everyone is meant to go to college.

It's funny how the biggest socialists/communists are educators but they sure like their fat salaries and tenures. You'd think they'd be advocates of taking a pay cut to help the masses.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Freeborn

I'm not sure if universal education is considered 'socialism' in the US....it's simply considered a right in almost every other country.

I am not sure either, but I'd guess that many would say universal education is considered socialism. I don't know about the UK, but.......lets face it, University education has always operated as sort of a gate keeper designed to help the rich stay rich. Its sort a "class divider" and helps maintain a status quo. I guess in the UK and the US, for that matter, the Plumber's son could manage to acquire a College Degree if he had the smarts. But no matter, because upon graduation and going into the job market, he'd still be the Plumber's son and would not have been able to afford Harvard or Oxford.

Rich irony in that is that one of my friends is a very successful Plumber and his son went to Community College to get a degree in Business Accounting. He turned right around and went back to work with his Dad, a Master Plumber, as a journeyman Plumber, (the son is a Master Plumber today), and together they both earn more than many Lawyers do. I mean, I'm talking hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. You would blush to know what they charge rich Doctors for plumbing work in their Mansions in posh neighborhoods.

That's completely wrong. In the USA, a plumber, son of a plumber, dishwasher or anyone of any class has the same opportunity to become wealthy as someone born into it. People get out of the ghetto and become wealthy. Yes, it takes more work but we don't (or didn't used to have) classes in this country that you were born into had to died in. Now, if you want to rub elbows with the established rich at country clubs, maybe you'll have some issues but why would you even want to do that?

This is an excellent talk about why government so often fails. It's talking about our current system, but the same problems would still exist, multiplied under a socialist system.

This talk goes into what people imagine would happen and how government operates to fix problems, and then breaks down why our imaginations fail us ... where we go wrong and why.

I know it's wrong, but it rings very true, especially as he gets into the end where he's talking about the bureaucrats.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Ah, Mosaic Law ... not the rules of Christianity exactly. One of the things that so put Christ out was how they lived the letter of the law and not the spirit. Christ came to live that law because no one else could.

So what good is a law or way of living if only a demigod can accomplish it?