The Church of Socialism

[thestonesfan]

It's ironic to me that so many socialists are devout atheists. I have a question to those that are: How do you differentiate the concepts of religion with that of socialism? Both exist because of the lack of faith humans have in themselves. Both depend on the sabotage of the individual and thus are anti-capitalistic. Both preach of servitude to a higher power, whether it be the almighty majority or the almighty God. In order for both to flourish, reason and logic must be ignored.

Do both dogmas appeal to the same inadequacies, and thus one is not needed? Is mankind eternally doomed to such counter-productive and damaging ideologies?

 

[Speedo]

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I think you are generalizing here. Maybe you are refering to Communism.

 

[thestonesfan]

I forgot that some people see a real difference between the two.

Mentally replace any instance of the word "Socialist" with "Collectivist" and you'll get my drift.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

To hold a belief in tha face of overwhelming evidence and to pursue any kind of "higher" purpose can be argued to be religious.

 

[Stapel]

I have always wondered why being conservative on social issues (gay mariage, abortion, sexual related stuff, euthanesia, drugs laws) go so well with supporting free enterprise.

And, indeed like TSF sais: Why do the people that don't think that traditional (christian) values should influence politics, often stand on the left side on fiscal issues?

Why do people (in the USA especially) that really are in favour of Free Enterprise, use the world liberal as an term of abuse (I once read the opinion page of a Texas newspaper: pretty funny).

I am a liberal on both fiscal and social issues. Live and let live in both companies and bedrooms.

As I live in a country where social issues have already been dealt with (anything is legal here), only the fiscal stuff is left. From that point of view, I am considered far to the right here!

 

[Yago]

I have the feeling it somehow belongs to American terminology, to be left -> Atheist/fiscally "left" or religious/fiscally "right". As the christian conservatives are the next lefty thing next to the socialists, and liberal means right and there are a lot of different flavours in between and most christians I know are rather left, the whole question doesn't make any sense to me.

The most astonishing thing would be, if there are no agnostics or atheists in the "right" parties in the US. That is a rather weird thought. I think it's a faux-pas to be agnostic/atheistic in US-politics, therefore you shut up about and make some cheap lip service.

Ah, customs and diffferent countries.

But by the way, I am not so sure, that people who claim to be "liberal" (in its actual meaning) are really "liberal". Mostly, the have also a lot of good old cartel-thinking. Which fits well witht the authorian-style in social issues

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Stapel
I have always wondered why being conservative on social issues (gay mariage, abortion, sexual related stuff, euthanesia, drugs laws) go so well with supporting free enterprise.

I guess it's the engrained conservative stance here. They don't seem to grasp that free enterprise is the result of individual freedom, same as abortion, gay marriage, and all the stuff they are generally against.

And, indeed like TSF sais: Why do the people that don't think that traditional (christian) values should influence politics, often stand on the left side on fiscal issues?

Who knows? Politics should not be influenced by anything except that which protects the individual. The rights of the individual should not be compromised because the majority of voters, whether they are religious or not, decide it should be so. The fact that history has shown that the will of the majority is very often horribly wrong proves that full-fledged democracy is a big mistake.

Political influence only becomes an issue when the government has such a heavy hand in everything, limiting our freedoms.

Why do people (in the USA especially) that really are in favour of Free Enterprise, use the world liberal as an term of abuse (I once read the opinion page of a Texas newspaper: pretty funny).

Politically, the word has been reduced to a label with no real meaning.

I am a liberal on both fiscal and social issues. Live and let live in both companies and bedrooms.

This is the only reasonable stance, if we are ever to have a society free of force and violence.

As I live in a country where social issues have already been dealt with (anything is legal here), only the fiscal stuff is left. From that point of view, I am considered far to the right here!

I don't really draw a distinction between 'social issues' and 'fiscal issues' anymore. Why should my right to keep my money be any less important than my right to smoke dope?

 

[Mojotronica]

This past week when I was putting together my thoughts on Objectivism I was thinking that Ayn Rand's fiscally conservative philosophy is a lot more closely in sync with atheism than with Christianity, yet many Christians (who are often fiscal conservatives) are big Ayn Rand fans.

I wonder if this is a faultline that will eventually split the Convervative/Republican coalitions.

It would probably happen when fiscal conservatives finally abandon the social control aspects of the platform as oppositional to free market idealogy, and when churches start feeling the sting of the loss (or impending loss) of government subsidies in the form of special tax breaks.

 

[thestonesfan]

Rand didn't think too highly of the religious crowd. She was an atheist.

 

[Yago]

It's no hangin' matta.

I just noticed. yeah, you're a strange stray cat. But 13 isn't legal tender.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Yago


I just noticed. yeah, you're a strange stray cat. But 13 isn't legal tender.

They raised the age in recent renditions of the song. To a whopping 16, I believe. Which is good, because 60 year old guys singing about 13 year olds is just plain wrong!

 

[Mojotronica]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Rand didn't think too highly of the religious crowd. She was an atheist.

I've met several fundamentalist Christians who feel that Ayn Rand really knew her stuff. Call it the church of Capitalism, if you like.

 

[Speedo]

This is the only reasonable stance, if we are ever to have a society free of force and violence.
-----------------
Drug companies will always be the targets of people who feel they should get something just because 'need' it. (from the Prescription Drugs thread)

You just showed the hole in your system. As long as people have the freedom to think that they need things, some people won't have the money to buy them, and will be forced (in their eyes) to take said things using violence.

No, dear liberals, I'm not advocating controlling people's thoughts. I'm telling you to wake up from your fantasy world.

 

[newfangle]

The difference between communism/fascism/socialism/mixed economy/keynesian economy and religion?

Well, virtually none, since they both rely on faith in order to operate.

The only difference is that in recent years, the religionists haven't been killing as many poeple as the collectivists.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Speedo


You just showed the hole in your system. As long as people have the freedom to think that they need things, some people won't have the money to buy them, and will be forced (in their eyes) to take said things using force and violence.

For which they would be punished, obviously. There will always be miscreants, hence the need for a justice system. Perhaps I should change it to say "government sanctioned force and violence".

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Blind faith in anything, whether that be God, the ability of the free market to prevail, the economic equality of mankind, etc, etc, WHEN it is to the detriment of the individual or society at large, is to be abhorred.

I see no difference between Newfangle's fanatical belief in the Free Market and the average socialist's urge to level all economic classes. Both eschew pragmatism and the welfare of the population in favor of radical and nonsensical rhetoric.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

I see no difference between Newfangle's fanatical belief in the Free Market and the average socialist's urge to level all economic classes. Both eschew pragmatism and the welfare of the population in favor of radical and nonsensical rhetoric.

This was one of the more entertaining passages I've ever read. You are just so.....so consistant all through the philosophical chain.

Of course, if you revere pragmatism, any extreme will disgust you.

Fortunately this is a world of causality, a world of absolutes, and a world of right and wrong.

The closest man has gotten to capitalism, the fastest he has progressed. The closest man has gotten to communism, the faster he has died. There is no inbetween. You either revere the rational, individualist nature of man, or you spit in the face of it.

 

[Archer 007]

I've always felt that socialism was the most Christ-like economic model. They even practied a form of communism in the early church (massive redistubution of wealth).

 

[bobgote]

I always thought that christianity and socialism go hand in hand, so despite thestonesfan's rather insulting opening post, i'd have to agree that the two should be more closely related (not with the rest of the garbage though )