Leftists

They never really achieved Communism. They sort of stalled at socialism where the government redistrubutes everything. Marx/Lenin believed that socialism was a necesary intermediate step between capitalism and communism.
In the USSR in particular the whole sitaation got rather messy and there was way too many opinions of what communism was/what it should have been to actually acheive anything like what was idealised about. To say they never 'achieved' communism may actually be incorrect, it's something I used to think but having looked further into it some countires/regiemes have certainally achieved what they viewed as communism, regardless of what you or I think it means. I mean Stalin by no means achieved a workers paradise, but he did create an industrialised country with him at the top and alot of dead bodies, and thats what 'communism' was to him.
 
Stalin was a megamaniacal paranoid dictator. The only reason he generaly isn't consigned to the same level of public opinion Hitler is due to the fact Stalin was our ally temporarily and made the USSR into our only real challenge for almost 50 years.
 
Ajidica said:
They never really achieved Communism. They sort of stalled at socialism where the government redistrubutes everything. Marx/Lenin believed that socialism was a necesary intermediate step between capitalism and communism.
Actually for Marx, socialism and communism were the same stage. As for Lenin, he was quite content in calling the USSR state capitalist.
 
They never really achieved Communism. They sort of stalled at socialism where the government redistrubutes everything. Marx/Lenin believed that socialism was a necesary intermediate step between capitalism and communism.
Actually, for the most part they stalled in the transitional stage, which, in Leninism, is a form of authoritarian state-collectivism. It was intended a form of accelerated capitalism intended to rapidly industrialise a county and form a proletarian class consciousness without forcing them to undergo the deprivations of unchecked capitalism, although it never really worked out that way, for various reasons. Socialism proper is necessarily democratic, and entertains a particular form of free market, the seeds of which can be seen in some of Lenin's early programs, before they were ruthlessly stamped out by Stalin's ultra-statist regime.

In the USSR in particular the whole sitaation got rather messy and there was way too many opinions of what communism was/what it should have been to actually acheive anything like what was idealised about. To say they never 'achieved' communism may actually be incorrect, it's something I used to think but having looked further into it some countires/regiemes have certainally achieved what they viewed as communism, regardless of what you or I think it means. I mean Stalin by no means achieved a workers paradise, but he did create an industrialised country with him at the top and alot of dead bodies, and thats what 'communism' was to him.
Actually, Stalin consistently maintained the Leninist position that the Soviet Union was a socialist country, and would attain communism when the rest of the world attained socialism and formed an international worker's state, thereby paving the way for the dissolution of the state and the the attainment of communism. One can quite easily argue that he was lying to rationalise his megalomaniac tendencies (indeed, it's the opposite that often becomes tricky), but in that scenario neither the concept of socialism or communism mattered to him as anything more than tools to convince others to do his bidding.
 
By American standards, I am apparently a socialist capitalist, up there with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter; in British terms, I'm Green/Lib Dem and in D&D, I'm Lawful Good. I'm pro-large government, with centralised health, education, welfare, transport and public services, being paid by a small military budget and high taxation, particularly for the rich and super-rich. I'm pro-civil rights, human rights etc. and against personal firearms, capital punishment and hate speech.

I say all this just to confirm my credentials as a raging liberal. After all, if I'm going to have my position ignored by blind ignorance and hatred, I at least would like it known what my position is :)
 
Well what would be the vision of a Christian Conservative Capitalist Libertarian?

Medieval Europe? The stone age? Monkeys? Hyenas? Every man for himself? What? What's the point? The vision? I don't get it?
 
Well what would be the vision of a Christian Conservative Capitalist Libertarian?

Christian = Worry about God and nothing else.

Conservative = Take from the poor and give to the rich.

Capitalist = Grab all the money you can by shipping jobs to China and the profits to the Caymans.

Libertarian = No government regulations or protection.

Good luck!
 
A CCCL is only one letter off from the CCCP! :devil:



In before: OMG NOT EVEN SAME ALPHABET!!!

OMG! NOT EVEN THE SAME ALPHABET!!!

It was funny people calling the USSR CCCP though when it should be SSSR. Horrorshow, my droogies.

Of course Christianity and Capitalism are incompatible. I dunno about libertarianism, I thought rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars was important.

I'd say Jesus was a pretty radical socialist. EDIT: And he had hippy hair allegedly.
 
I don't think there's any good reason to think Jesus was a socialist or held any other political position; he thought the world was going to end soon and wasn't really interested in earthly political systems. The quote about rendering to Caesar (which is probably authentic) illustrates this nicely: Jesus is asked a question about politics, but he gives an answer about God. Also, I'm afraid that he would probably have had short hair. The common portrayal of Jesus with long hair only became common in the fourth century.

However, Jesus' teaching and the beliefs of the early Christians were very influential on the development of socialism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The "social Gospel" movement was an important movement within the Protestant churches, especially in Britain and Canada and parts of the United States, and it basically called for socialist policies on the basis of Christian principles. Here's a brief passage I wrote a while back on this, for anyone who's interested:

The godfather of the movement was John Frederick Maurice, the son of a Unitarian who became an Anglican priest and brilliant academic. Maurice was a Broad Churchman, and was sometimes subjected to investigations of his supposedly over-heterodox theology, but he did not go along with the more extreme kinds of German liberalism. Instead, Maurice devoted himself to improving the education of the poorer classes, setting up colleges for women and for working men. He helped to inspire the establishment of the Christian Social Union, established in 1889 with Brooke Foss Westcott, a leading Biblical scholar, as its president.

The social Gospel movement proper, however, is often seen to have started with Walter Rauschenbusch, who despite the name was not German but American. Raised in a traditional Baptist family, Rauschenbusch found his faith shaken when he went to college and learned of higher criticism. He became deeply influenced by liberal theology, especially its emphasis on the kingdom of God as a human society based on love. He felt that Christians needed to recover this emphasis in the teaching of the Bible, which had become obscured by an obsession with the salvation of the individual soul after death. This was translated into a concern for real action after he worked as a minister in New York City’s notorious Hell’s Kitchen area in the 1890s.

In his "Christianity and the social crisis", Rauschenbusch insisted that

no man shares his life with God whose religion does not flow out, naturally and without effort, into all relations of his life and reconstructs everything that it touches. Whoever uncouples the religious and the social life has not understood Jesus. Whoever sets any bounds for the reconstructive power of the religious life over the social relations and institutions of men, to that extent denies the faith of the Master.

Views such as these were highly influential, not only within Christianity but within wider society. Progressive politicians such as Woodrow Wilson were deeply influenced by Rauschenbusch, and so too were later Christian leaders in the vanguard of social reform, such as Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu. Such views were even more prominent in Canada, where they spread throughout the theological colleges. One of the most important figures was Salem Bland, a Methodist minister who possessed enormous charisma and (it was said) the eyes of a prophet. Bland, based at Wesley College, helped to organise those with social Gospel views into a powerful lobby group within the church. He was also a popular speaker in his own right and spread these views throughout Canada.

In Britain, meanwhile, ideas like these were a major influence on the nascent labour movement. James Keir Hardie, a Scottish union leader, founded the Labour Party in 1900 to promote what would become known as socialist values. Hardie, a vocal campaigner for women’s rights, Indian home rule, and other progressive causes in the early twentieth century, had been raised as an atheist but converted to Christianity and became a lay preacher. His socialism was based in large part upon his Christian convictions, which not only fed into his concern for social justice but led him to steer the Labour Party away from out-and-out Marxism. In "From serfdom to socialism", written in 1907 while Labour leader, Hardie wrote:

This generation has grown up ignorant of the fact that socialism is as old as the human race... When the old civilizations were putrefying, the still small voice of Jesus the Communist stole over the earth like a soft refreshing breeze carrying healing wherever it went.

The point being, don't assume that Christianity goes hand-in-hand with right-wing politics. The association of Christianity and right-wing politics in the United States at the moment distorts many people's perceptions of this subject, but it doesn't reflect the wider reality. Indeed the association of Christianity with right-wing politics even in the United States is quite a recent development, going back only about thirty years, and even then it is by no means absolute. It's just that the right-wing Christians make more noise than the others. There are many interesting reasons for all this - which are perhaps related to the reasons why the US in general is more right-wing than most of the rest of the world - but of course this thread is not the place to discuss them.
 
Interesting.

If Jesus didn't have long hair how come kids keep yelling "Jesus" at me huh?

EDIT: Would you say Islam is more socialist than Christianity? With the mandatory charitable giving as one of its seven pillars?
 
Interesting.

If Jesus didn't have long hair how come kids keep yelling "Jesus" at me huh?

Maybe you were born in a barn?

EDIT: Would you say Islam is more socialist than Christianity? With the mandatory charitable giving as one of its seven pillars?

I don't know nearly enough about Islam to answer that.
 
Five Pillars, not Seven.
 
And sometimes you can have political issue intermixing with religious.

In the town where I live now, Mazamet, there is a strong protestant community, and it was an important industrial town (leather industry).

At the beginning of the previous century, the factory owners were mostly protestant, while the workers were mostly catholics.

At the time, the right wing political party and the catholics were "allied"...

And so in Mazamet, the workers were voting for the right wing, while the bosses were voting for the left wing :crazyeye:
 
I'd say that "Christian" and "capitalist" aren't really compatible - but then what do I know, I've been corrupted by reading too many godless pinko lefties like St Basil of Caesarea.

I've been saying that for years. But no one listens to me. :p
 
Actually check up on what Jesus said and then compare it to the actions of many alleged "Christians". Then actually read the Qoran and compare that to the actions of some "Moslems".

QED: fundamentalism is bad.
 
Back
Top Bottom