Is Socialism Moral? Especially, Christian?

[Purple Knight]

The question for debate is whether a socialist system is closer to how Jesus intended people to behave than a capitalist one.

The sub-question is for those who think socialism is moral whether that was inspired by religion or not: If a country's laws were very close to what Jesus (or your morality) taught, but as a consequence, the country was a very bad place to live, would you move there? For example, a country that has a lot of assault because it is a law that you turn the other cheek and don't hit back, and you'll be punished for retaliating. Or a country where ministers roam around, imbued with legal authority, and they decide when you must sell all your possessions and give to the poor, including your house and car.

It's very easy to have high morals when the consequences are less present because the system you happen to live in works to protect you from them. Is there something extra moral about choosing to live where the system doesn't do that? Or is it just foolish? Because perhaps the goal is to have and hold the highest morals possible and if you've been given an ivory tower with which to protect them, that's simply a logical choice to achieve maximum morality.

[Daedalus X]

The question for debate is whether a socialist system is closer to how Jesus intended people to behave than a capitalist one.

There is nothing wrong with socialism, the problem only manifests when the government mandates socialism.

[Purple Knight]

There is nothing wrong with socialism, the problem only manifests when the government mandates socialism.

Well, we need some laws. By the same token I could say that "Thou shalt not kill," is great, but problems come in when the government mandates it. And it would still be true. We still have the problems of failure to scale and of systemic exploitation. It's not as common for people to be framed for murder because someone benefits from that (though see the documentary Making a Murderer for an interesting case) as it is for someone to inflate their needs and downplay their abilities so they can mooch off a socialist system, but it still happens, and nobody says it's a reason to get rid of the law against murder.

Besides which, people mooch off charity in a pure capitalist system, in the same way. If we're talking about what's problematic and not what's moral, the transfer of unneeded resources to moochers doesn't cease to be problematic simply because it is voluntary. A Libertarian will simply argue that the voluntary aspect means it ceases to be immoral. Every societal problem that government moochers cause, charity moochers can also cause. A charity can be strained the same way government resources can be strained, and you can say, well, it's okay, because if a charity is infested with moochers, simply don't give to that charity, and that would be a valid argument if there was good transparency in charities about where the money went. But we don't always know where the money goes, if it is really being used effectively, and there's every opportunity for charities to fudge their numbers.

Voluntary charity has the same problem of scale that welfare suffers from. And voluntary charity adds an additional problem that people might be hounded or pressured unfairly, and then punished or ostracised by society for not giving enough, when they really can't afford it. Ostracism is often touted as a fair mechanism to keep society generous. But it will be up to the mob how much each person should give to avoid the boot of ostracism being brought down upon them, and clever spin doctors may avoid giving anything while being enormously wealthy, while those that are struggling and can't afford to give anything, actually have to give the most because they don't have the resources to fight the ostracism.

[Daedalus X]

Well, we need some laws. By the same token I could say that "Thou shalt not kill," is great, but problems come in when the government mandates it.

I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t be prosecuted by the federal government, as they have no law against murder. At least not in New York.

Voluntary charity used to work well back in the day because the charity could withhold benefits for any reason, it was not an entitlement, so if someone abused the program they would be cut off really fast, no hearing was needed. While governments dispense funds based on complicated rules that nobody cares about it, because it is not their money, the employees will get the paid the same if they give to deserving people or unworthy people.

[Purple Knight]

Well, we need some laws. By the same token I could say that "Thou shalt not kill," is great, but problems come in when the government mandates it.

I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t be prosecuted by the federal government, as they have no law against murder. At least not in New York.

Voluntary charity used to work well back in the day because the charity could withhold benefits for any reason, it was not an entitlement, so if someone abused the program they would be cut off really fast, no hearing was needed. While governments dispense funds based on complicated rules that nobody cares about it, because it is not their money, the employees will get the paid the same if they give to deserving people or unworthy people.

And charities have become more like government, haven't they? They dole out to the greedy and the clever red-tape-navigators, while those who genuinely need have little chance of getting anything. It sounds to me like the failure to scale problem is real, and "it'll turn out fine as long as government doesn't do it" misses the issue, except by the coincidence that the government, as the organisation that encompasses all others in a country, suffers from the failure to scale problem, first and worst.

[William]

The question for debate is whether a socialist system is closer to how Jesus intended people to behave than a capitalist one.

Jesus left.
What he intended therefore has to have something to do with how humanity would unfold after he left.

Did he think that his message would have humans creating a system which best exemplifies his message?

How do we reconcile the stories of Revelation which has Jesus eventually stopping humans from acting out their atrocities and his using force to do so?

[bjs1]

The question for debate is whether a socialist system is closer to how Jesus intended people to behave than a capitalist one.

Jesus taught personal morality, not a political system. If a person gives of her wealth to help someone in need, that is a morally good action. If a government taxes people’s money to give it to those in need, that is neither good nor evil.

This is not a condemnation or commendation of socialism, just as it is not a condemnation or commendation of capitalism. These are political and economic systems, and we have no record of Jesus supporting or opposing any political or economic system.

Capitalism and socialism are, so to speak, raw material which the human soul works with. They are liking falling in love, or being a kindergarten teacher, or learning Spanish. None of these are inherently good or bad. They just are. It is what we do in/with these things that matters.

[William]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #7]

These are political and economic systems, and we have no record of Jesus supporting or opposing any political or economic system.

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #7]

These are political and economic systems, and we have no record of Jesus supporting or opposing any political or economic system.

Which political or economic system do you believe Jesus was supporting or condemning when he cleansed the Temple?

(BTW, I see this as a call to respect the holiness of God and honor worship, and a condemnation of greed and hypocrisy.)

[Purple Knight]

The question for debate is whether a socialist system is closer to how Jesus intended people to behave than a capitalist one.

Jesus taught personal morality, not a political system. If a person gives of her wealth to help someone in need, that is a morally good action. If a government taxes people’s money to give it to those in need, that is neither good nor evil.

This is not a condemnation or commendation of socialism, just as it is not a condemnation or commendation of capitalism. These are political and economic systems, and we have no record of Jesus supporting or opposing any political or economic system.

Capitalism and socialism are, so to speak, raw material which the human soul works with. They are liking falling in love, or being a kindergarten teacher, or learning Spanish. None of these are inherently good or bad. They just are. It is what we do in/with these things that matters.

What if the fact that the government taxes and gives to the needy, is due to people wanting to do it on a large scale, so they have pursued policies that have the government organise, expedite, and handle it?

(BTW, I see this as a call to respect the holiness of God and honor worship, and a condemnation of greed and hypocrisy.)

Then he might be condemning political systems that enshrine greed and hypocrisy.