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.

[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.

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.)

We have no record of Jesus supporting or opposing any political or economic system.

Here is another.

[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.

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?

The problem with this is that the “people wanting to do it on a large scale” are no longer trying to help the needy; they are trying to force other people to help the needy. In any political system a person can help those in need, and Jesus certainly commanded his followers to do so. However, socialism is me deciding that my neighbor should help the needy and using the threat of government to require my neighbor to do so.

This may (or may not) provide an overall advantage to the needy, but it removes agency from the person whose money was used to help the needy. Jesus’ teaching was not simply about the result on the poor. It was about the giver being transformed as a person.

Consider, for instance, Jesus’ teaching that when you give you should not let your right hand no what your left hand is doing (Matthew chapter 6). He taught his followers not to announcing the giving with trumpets or make a big deal about it. If I make a great show of my giving or if I hide my giving, it has no effect on the needy. They receive the same gift either way. But it Jesus’ teachings the receiver of the gift was only one part of why giving matters. Jesus also focused on the giver being the kind of person who shows compassion to others. A tax to help the needy takes away the choice to be compassionate.

There is a valid debate or which political-economic system is the most effective, but none of them are taught by Jesus.

(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.

Then it would be as much a condemnation of socialism as it would be of capitalism.

[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.)

We have no record of Jesus supporting or opposing any political or economic system.

Here is another.

Another what? These posts provide images representing various events in Jesus’ life, but do not provide any explanation of how those actions support a political or economic system. As of yet there is not even a statement of which system was supposedly being supported.

If someone can explain how these events support a political or economic system, very well. Until then we could have a thousand more images and there will still be nothing to debate.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

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

Defining these is tricky because folk have different accounts re what they consider to being "capitalist" or "socialist" systems.

Indeed, all social-political systems ( communism too ) are very similar to each other in that they retain a hierarchical composition, where the few at the top control everybody else, so essentially the systems are the same - or rather - variations of the same...thus, why I posted the "Satan Tempts Jesus" picture.

I think that story itself shows the reader that it is at least clear that Jesus rejected the offers of ruling through the hierarchical process of Satan for to worship Satan is to accept his way of doing things, being the overall boss that he is portrayed as being.

So while we cannot appear to agree ( as a species ) as to what kind of system Jesus would have us follow after/build or "whatever", we could take from that story that Jesus is indeed supporting some kind of unknown system and is opposing any political or economic system.

The thing about that is, he left the planet (as far as that story tells us )

and since that day, it has been "business as usual", for every system, regardless of what stand anyone has taken on the questions of existing or not in a created thing, and of "God".

We could deduce from this, that whatever the system is calling itself, "business as usual" is us worshipping Satan, while Jesus remains absent.

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.

But is that what Jesus was saying to everyone? And if everyone was doing what Jesus was saying, who would "slap" anyone anyway?
So the "problem" cannot be how you explain it, but rather, that there are those who resist even wanting to properly envision what system Jesus had in mind for humans and how a world might look if it were to be a proper interpretation of what Jesus had in mind.

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.

IF so, THEN it would be correct to worship Satan.

However, the natural consequences may not be good for all, but at least will offer some protection for those at the very top.

So in that, it depends largely on the goal...which appears to be survival of the species in a hostile environment, even at the cost of corrupting the planet actual, and having to plant that specie on an even more hostile planet or moon largely because those at the top cannot control the multitude enough to have the multitude want to make life better for everyone by developing a better system than the current ones, for the sake of all humanity and the planet whole.

Essentially Satan has a plan which takes care of that by saying "to hell with the people if they do not want to survive and prosper together as one" Satan will make sure that at least some humans will make it, even that the overall task is simply to seed humans into the greater neighborhood, and begin to get out there and claim ownership of everything they can, if whatever way we can to make that - at least a feasible alternative if not an actual reality, preferable to fading into dust and eternal silence.

[William]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #13]

Until then we could have a thousand more images and there will still be nothing to debate.

Here is another.



Ponder upon that.

[William]

Even this post in another thread is saying a similar thing.

[Purple Knight]

(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.

That's true. I think an honest reading has Jesus condemning every political system. But, the fact remains, we need one. They're like male lions. They're less than useless and a drain on the pride. They do nothing but take. They do nothing but hurt. Still, you need one.

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?

The problem with this is that the “people wanting to do it on a large scale” are no longer trying to help the needy; they are trying to force other people to help the needy. In any political system a person can help those in need, and Jesus certainly commanded his followers to do so. However, socialism is me deciding that my neighbor should help the needy and using the threat of government to require my neighbor to do so.

In the actual, yes. In the ideal, you could have a situation where everyone really wants to help the needy and they just want to use law to make sure everyone gives equally and nobody cheats. Nobody wants to cheat, but it's still a fair worry that people will, or will even feel forced to cheat, saying they gave when they gave nothing, because money was tight. I'm terrified of voluntary, socially-enforced charity because the social mob will get me for not giving enough, even if I give more than my fair share. I would vastly prefer the government just handles it, so that the mob won't, and nobody is burdened unfairly because the crowd doesn't like their face.

I only mention this because capitalists usually want to pit ideal capitalism against real-life socialism, and that's not a fair comparison. Mostly, yes, you will have socialism being about force. But ideally the system comes about because everyone wants to support the needy so the government just streamlines the process.

This may (or may not) provide an overall advantage to the needy, but it removes agency from the person whose money was used to help the needy. Jesus’ teaching was not simply about the result on the poor. It was about the giver being transformed as a person.

No, you have the same agency. For someone who wants to give and would anyway, it simply provides convenience and fairness. Just because the law forces you to do a good deed, does not invalidate the good deed. This might be true in human reckoning, because humans might withhold credit, sneering and saying, "Well, you only did that because you were forced," but I think God knows whether that's actually the case or not.

Arguably, if anyone who would give anyway is upset, it's because they can't now cry and yell about their good deed. Everyone is forced to do the good deed, so nobody can gain extra clout by doing it. I (mostly) agree with Jesus that it shouldn't be primarily about getting credit, so this is a good thing.

There are plenty of reasons to be happy when the law matches what you believe is righteous. I don't think anyone would make the case that murder shouldn't be illegal because it removes agency and fails to give would-be murderers a chance to decide on their own not to murder, and choose to be good without the law forcing it on them.

The meat of it in my mind is that when giving to the needy is ubiquitous, whether it is legally enforced or not, it has some negative effects. Clever red-tape-navigators end up with more, simply because they are better at getting the "needy" label, while those with less may actually be forced to pay them. In our system, welfare covers rent and food fully and also provides a small allowance, while full-time workers come up short of rent and food, which obviously isn't fair. This is not exclusive to the government and many street beggars make well more than minimum wage, from voluntary charity. Every dollar in a bum's pocket, spent frivolously, hurts the earned dollar in the worker's pocket, making it less valuable.

[boatsnguitars]

Which political system supports slavery? That's the one Jesus supported.

[William]

Which political system supports slavery? That's the one Jesus supported.

In context, Jesus supported the idea of humans serving one another, which strictly speaking is not a known "political system" which can be pointed out (from all the political systems we do know of) and declared as "This is what Jesus supported!".

[Purple Knight]

But is that what Jesus was saying to everyone? And if everyone was doing what Jesus was saying, who would "slap" anyone anyway?
So the "problem" cannot be how you explain it, but rather, that there are those who resist even wanting to properly envision what system Jesus had in mind for humans and how a world might look if it were to be a proper interpretation of what Jesus had in mind.

This gets close to the understanding I was trying to have people come to in this thread: There will always be people who do not do as the law instructs. If turning the other cheek was the law - do not retaliate against assault - people who want to hit people would move there.

Socialism has some bad second-tier effects too, though first-tier, it's a perfect system to just use what we have to take care of everybody, if we have enough. Those pesky after-effects include people becoming lazy and overbreeding.

Turning the other cheek similarly looks good on paper, but because anyone may hit you and you're encouraged to let it happen, it doesn't work in reality. You can say it's moral, and no one can really refute it, but other than people who want to hit others and have no threat of retaliation, no one would want to live in a place where retaliation was illegal.