One of the things that we should perhaps consider is how Christians or members of other great faiths should respond to each of capitalism and socialism.
Shalom
Ted:)
Capitalism/Socialism
Capitalism/Socialism
Ted;1342279 wrote: One of the things that we should perhaps consider is how Christians or members of other great faiths should respond to each of capitalism and socialism.
Shalom
Ted:)
I'm not convinced that either system *in its pure form* breaks Christian values but I'd agree that specific implementations of both have done so.
I am definitely against religion involving itself in politics or in temporal affairs generally but, where the system in force is causing humanitarian abuse then it is incumbent on the Church and the faithful to speak out.
Basically, each case on its own merit. It is natural that each person will judge a situation with reference to their beliefs and it is right that they should do so but what is not right is the imposition of a Theocracy.
Shalom
Ted:)
I'm not convinced that either system *in its pure form* breaks Christian values but I'd agree that specific implementations of both have done so.
I am definitely against religion involving itself in politics or in temporal affairs generally but, where the system in force is causing humanitarian abuse then it is incumbent on the Church and the faithful to speak out.
Basically, each case on its own merit. It is natural that each person will judge a situation with reference to their beliefs and it is right that they should do so but what is not right is the imposition of a Theocracy.
Capitalism/Socialism
Bryn Mawr;1342286 wrote:
I am definitely against religion involving itself in politics or in temporal affairs generally but, where the system in force is causing humanitarian abuse then it is incumbent on the Church and the faithful to speak out..
Big time. I'm the same, "render unto Caesar" and all that. I understand that the bigger the population of the planet, the greater the need for an organizing force and the bigger it will have to be.
I also have no big problem with socialism other than it does seem to lend itself to corruption... but then so does capitalism as we have just found out so brutally!
I am definitely against religion involving itself in politics or in temporal affairs generally but, where the system in force is causing humanitarian abuse then it is incumbent on the Church and the faithful to speak out..
Big time. I'm the same, "render unto Caesar" and all that. I understand that the bigger the population of the planet, the greater the need for an organizing force and the bigger it will have to be.
I also have no big problem with socialism other than it does seem to lend itself to corruption... but then so does capitalism as we have just found out so brutally!
Capitalism/Socialism
Saint_;1342287 wrote: "render unto Caesar"
I say, "Pay Caesar." That way is paying God what is his, imv.
I say, "Pay Caesar." That way is paying God what is his, imv.
Capitalism/Socialism
I can't comment as I'm only a small fraction of the way through the bible. lol
Awesome idea for a thread though.
As an ill informed religious person the first recollection I have regarding "stuff" and the collection of said "stuff" is that the one greatly unfollowed piece of advice from the bible is supposedly to not take more than one needs.
Awesome idea for a thread though.
As an ill informed religious person the first recollection I have regarding "stuff" and the collection of said "stuff" is that the one greatly unfollowed piece of advice from the bible is supposedly to not take more than one needs.
Capitalism/Socialism
Ted;1342279 wrote: One of the things that we should perhaps consider is how Christians or members of other great faiths should respond to each of capitalism and socialism.
Shalom
Ted:)
Both socialism and capitalism have their origins in the age of enlightenment. Both are heavily influenced by religion in particular protestantism. One is not more christian than the other so what possible relevance does your faith have on the decision? Why not pick the best bits of both since they are not mutually exclusive. What is it about religious people that they need someone to tell them what to think? Why can't you think it through for yourself and draw your own conclusions?
Shalom
Ted:)
Both socialism and capitalism have their origins in the age of enlightenment. Both are heavily influenced by religion in particular protestantism. One is not more christian than the other so what possible relevance does your faith have on the decision? Why not pick the best bits of both since they are not mutually exclusive. What is it about religious people that they need someone to tell them what to think? Why can't you think it through for yourself and draw your own conclusions?
Capitalism/Socialism
Ted;1342279 wrote: One of the things that we should perhaps consider is how Christians or members of other great faiths should respond to each of capitalism and socialism.
Shalom
Ted:)Christians should not in anyway become involved in political issues or profiteering.
Unless that is where your own thoughts are, (you don't offer your your own considered opinion) I'm rather surprised you brought this subject up for consideration Ted.
Capitalism is too profit orientated.
Also, it's an unregulated supply and demand system with hardly any government interference concerning trade matters, thus wide open to abuse.
Socialism, can anyone visualize everyone deciding where economic efforts should take place. I think not, it would be impossible for everyone to agree. Probably end up in factions.
Shalom
Ted:)Christians should not in anyway become involved in political issues or profiteering.
Unless that is where your own thoughts are, (you don't offer your your own considered opinion) I'm rather surprised you brought this subject up for consideration Ted.
Capitalism is too profit orientated.
Also, it's an unregulated supply and demand system with hardly any government interference concerning trade matters, thus wide open to abuse.
Socialism, can anyone visualize everyone deciding where economic efforts should take place. I think not, it would be impossible for everyone to agree. Probably end up in factions.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1342349 wrote: Both socialism and capitalism have their origins in the age of enlightenment.
Capitalism pre-dates the Enlightenment, and assisted to create it. Capitalism is easily defined, but socialism is defined rather variously. There is the Marxist definition, the realisation of which can come into existence only when capitalism has run its course. But there were socialists of another definition in Europe well before Marx, even before capitalism existed, and one could argue that the ideals of ancient Greece and perhaps Troy were essentially socialist.
How does Christianity fit into this? 'What, O man, does the Lord require of you? To love mercy and justice, and to walk humbly with your God.' One sees the principle of economic justice in the Laws of Moses, and then in the sharing of resources of the apostolic church. For technical reasons, capitalism cannot create a just society, so it cannot be said to be according to God's will. However, true socialism creates a just society- that's its avowed purpose, so may be according to divine will. So theoretically, the Christian has socialist ideals.
However, we all live in a capitalist world, and must adjust as we think fit. Indeed, Christians think it through for themselves and draw their own conclusions. But these are not the real preoccupation of Christians, whose citizenship is in heaven, not in this corrupt, fleeting world. Their only guaranteed response to that world is to provide the gospel, which, when applied, limits corruption, and which, when applied, lays up 'treasure' in the next, permanent world.
Capitalism pre-dates the Enlightenment, and assisted to create it. Capitalism is easily defined, but socialism is defined rather variously. There is the Marxist definition, the realisation of which can come into existence only when capitalism has run its course. But there were socialists of another definition in Europe well before Marx, even before capitalism existed, and one could argue that the ideals of ancient Greece and perhaps Troy were essentially socialist.
How does Christianity fit into this? 'What, O man, does the Lord require of you? To love mercy and justice, and to walk humbly with your God.' One sees the principle of economic justice in the Laws of Moses, and then in the sharing of resources of the apostolic church. For technical reasons, capitalism cannot create a just society, so it cannot be said to be according to God's will. However, true socialism creates a just society- that's its avowed purpose, so may be according to divine will. So theoretically, the Christian has socialist ideals.
However, we all live in a capitalist world, and must adjust as we think fit. Indeed, Christians think it through for themselves and draw their own conclusions. But these are not the real preoccupation of Christians, whose citizenship is in heaven, not in this corrupt, fleeting world. Their only guaranteed response to that world is to provide the gospel, which, when applied, limits corruption, and which, when applied, lays up 'treasure' in the next, permanent world.
Capitalism/Socialism
posted by binbag
Capitalism is too profit orientated.
Also, it's an unregulated supply and demand system with hardly any government interference concerning trade matters, thus wide open to abuse.
Why do you think that? That is a laissez faire version of capitalism that is arguably anti-capitalist since no regulation will lead inevitably to the collapse of a capitalist economy.
posted by xyz
Capitalism pre-dates the Enlightenment, and assisted to create it. Capitalism is easily defined, but socialism is defined rather variously. There is the Marxist definition, the realisation of which can come into existence only when capitalism has run its course. But there were socialists of another definition in Europe well before Marx, even before capitalism existed, and one could argue that the ideals of ancient Greece and perhaps Troy were essentially socialist.
I would disagree with you there. You cannot have a capitalist economy until you get away from a feudal one and create a middle class and that isn't going to happen until the notion of a divine right to rule was seen as nonsense. You need a capitalist class, with capital to invest, with wealth made through farming or trade to invest to make more wealth to invest again. It's no accident that the seminal work and ideology came from one of the first countries to industrialise , namely the UK, and also one of the countries at the forefront of the enlightenment and the protestant revolution. The wealth of nations was first published in 1776. it is a reflection on economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and argues that free market economies are more productive and beneficial to their societies. The book, written for the educated, is considered to be the foundation of modern economic theory.
Marx got it wrong there wasn't ever going to be a natural progression from capitalism to communism all that would ever happen is the taking over of a new set of masters.
If you mean socialists in the sense that they believed there should be liberty and equality for all then that too is in the ranks of the nascent educated industrial working class who had moved on from their peasant, tied to the land state of serfdom. It was to them that many of the ideas of thomas paine and the like appealed to but you need a literate society that can take on board the ideas being talked about.
Capitalism is too profit orientated.
Also, it's an unregulated supply and demand system with hardly any government interference concerning trade matters, thus wide open to abuse.
Why do you think that? That is a laissez faire version of capitalism that is arguably anti-capitalist since no regulation will lead inevitably to the collapse of a capitalist economy.
posted by xyz
Capitalism pre-dates the Enlightenment, and assisted to create it. Capitalism is easily defined, but socialism is defined rather variously. There is the Marxist definition, the realisation of which can come into existence only when capitalism has run its course. But there were socialists of another definition in Europe well before Marx, even before capitalism existed, and one could argue that the ideals of ancient Greece and perhaps Troy were essentially socialist.
I would disagree with you there. You cannot have a capitalist economy until you get away from a feudal one and create a middle class and that isn't going to happen until the notion of a divine right to rule was seen as nonsense. You need a capitalist class, with capital to invest, with wealth made through farming or trade to invest to make more wealth to invest again. It's no accident that the seminal work and ideology came from one of the first countries to industrialise , namely the UK, and also one of the countries at the forefront of the enlightenment and the protestant revolution. The wealth of nations was first published in 1776. it is a reflection on economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and argues that free market economies are more productive and beneficial to their societies. The book, written for the educated, is considered to be the foundation of modern economic theory.
Marx got it wrong there wasn't ever going to be a natural progression from capitalism to communism all that would ever happen is the taking over of a new set of masters.
If you mean socialists in the sense that they believed there should be liberty and equality for all then that too is in the ranks of the nascent educated industrial working class who had moved on from their peasant, tied to the land state of serfdom. It was to them that many of the ideas of thomas paine and the like appealed to but you need a literate society that can take on board the ideas being talked about.
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1342378 wrote: You cannot have a capitalist economy until you get away from a feudal one
Feudalism is not the issue. Agrarianism is the issue, and those can and do run concurrently, though not on the same piece of real estate, of course.
and create a middle class and that isn't going to happen until the notion of a divine right to rule was seen as nonsense.
There is no necessity for a theory of divine right. Feudal monarchs did not bother with that- the right of might was their argument.
You need a capitalist class, with capital to invest, with wealth made through farming or trade to invest to make more wealth to invest again.
And that process started with Henry VII, long before James I stamped his petulant foot. That is what created the middle class that lopped off his son's stubborn head.
And socialist ideas predated both of them, because Lollardy had socialist ideals, which of course frightened the landed class beyond civility; in turn, Levellers gave the early middle class a fright.
Feudalism is not the issue. Agrarianism is the issue, and those can and do run concurrently, though not on the same piece of real estate, of course.
and create a middle class and that isn't going to happen until the notion of a divine right to rule was seen as nonsense.
There is no necessity for a theory of divine right. Feudal monarchs did not bother with that- the right of might was their argument.
You need a capitalist class, with capital to invest, with wealth made through farming or trade to invest to make more wealth to invest again.
And that process started with Henry VII, long before James I stamped his petulant foot. That is what created the middle class that lopped off his son's stubborn head.
And socialist ideas predated both of them, because Lollardy had socialist ideals, which of course frightened the landed class beyond civility; in turn, Levellers gave the early middle class a fright.
Capitalism/Socialism
posted by xyz
And socialist ideas predated both of them, because Lollardy had socialist ideals, which of course frightened the landed class beyond civility; in turn, Levellers gave the early middle class a fright.
posted by me
If you mean socialists in the sense that they believed there should be liberty and equality for all then that too is in the ranks of the nascent educated industrial working class who had moved on from their peasant, tied to the land state of serfdom.
And what were the occupations of the levellers?
I think we agree but are phrasing things slightly differently. Might may have been right but handily backed up with a belief in the king being god's anointed helped, the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate and all that jazz. Even now despite all common sense people still believe the pope speaks for god. I do think it a stretch to call the greeks socialist.
And socialist ideas predated both of them, because Lollardy had socialist ideals, which of course frightened the landed class beyond civility; in turn, Levellers gave the early middle class a fright.
posted by me
If you mean socialists in the sense that they believed there should be liberty and equality for all then that too is in the ranks of the nascent educated industrial working class who had moved on from their peasant, tied to the land state of serfdom.
And what were the occupations of the levellers?
I think we agree but are phrasing things slightly differently. Might may have been right but handily backed up with a belief in the king being god's anointed helped, the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate and all that jazz. Even now despite all common sense people still believe the pope speaks for god. I do think it a stretch to call the greeks socialist.
Capitalism/Socialism
The God of the old testement sounds more like a bloodthirsty capitalist.
Though in the New Testement Jesus sounds a lot more like a socialist. He rants a lot about rich people, teaches helping the poor and needy. He was clearly anti-wealth, saying that it's next to impossible for a rich person to enter in to heaven, the meek will inherit the Earth. What's interesting is he describes a wealth-redistribution system where the richest people on Earth will be the poorest in the afterlife, and vice versa. That is clearly in contradiction to the "greed is good, wealth is good" mantra of capitalism.
Chrisitians in the U.S. tend to ignore most of this, and look back towards the older books for the more primative and heartless policies. Though, they should not consider themselves Chrisitians if they give priority to the old policies rather than the new policies that Jesus put in place.
From what I can tell the libertarian leanings (in the U.S. religious right) come not from the teachings of Jesus, but the psychotic babblings in Revelation, where where the government has too much power and forces everyone to get marks on their heads. That's not socialism either, it's just nuttiness.
Though in the New Testement Jesus sounds a lot more like a socialist. He rants a lot about rich people, teaches helping the poor and needy. He was clearly anti-wealth, saying that it's next to impossible for a rich person to enter in to heaven, the meek will inherit the Earth. What's interesting is he describes a wealth-redistribution system where the richest people on Earth will be the poorest in the afterlife, and vice versa. That is clearly in contradiction to the "greed is good, wealth is good" mantra of capitalism.
Chrisitians in the U.S. tend to ignore most of this, and look back towards the older books for the more primative and heartless policies. Though, they should not consider themselves Chrisitians if they give priority to the old policies rather than the new policies that Jesus put in place.
From what I can tell the libertarian leanings (in the U.S. religious right) come not from the teachings of Jesus, but the psychotic babblings in Revelation, where where the government has too much power and forces everyone to get marks on their heads. That's not socialism either, it's just nuttiness.
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1342393 wrote: And what were the occupations of the levellers?
The leaders were educated, professional men, lawyers and doctors, and many army officers. Their arguments were published, and convinced many, as they attracted increasing support in the country, until they were ferociously persecuted and neutralised. They often took their inspiration from the Bible; they held that both Old and New Testaments supported their views, which were that all were equal before the law, and had every right to hold religious views as they saw fit. They believed that government should be fully democratic, which, had they had their way, would have led to some form of socialism, and may have radically changed the course of history. They condemned all violence committed in pursuit of religious matters.
None of those were the views of many of the powerful elite at the time, even though they claimed to follow the same Bible. They are of course what are thought decent and normal views in Western countries today. Due to the globalisation of capitalism, what we call democracies today do not have the power to alter much the ineluctable forces of capitalist cycles, as the USA in particular is discovering currently- but it is nevertheless Leveller views that most Westerners hold today, whether they realise it or not.
The leaders were educated, professional men, lawyers and doctors, and many army officers. Their arguments were published, and convinced many, as they attracted increasing support in the country, until they were ferociously persecuted and neutralised. They often took their inspiration from the Bible; they held that both Old and New Testaments supported their views, which were that all were equal before the law, and had every right to hold religious views as they saw fit. They believed that government should be fully democratic, which, had they had their way, would have led to some form of socialism, and may have radically changed the course of history. They condemned all violence committed in pursuit of religious matters.
None of those were the views of many of the powerful elite at the time, even though they claimed to follow the same Bible. They are of course what are thought decent and normal views in Western countries today. Due to the globalisation of capitalism, what we call democracies today do not have the power to alter much the ineluctable forces of capitalist cycles, as the USA in particular is discovering currently- but it is nevertheless Leveller views that most Westerners hold today, whether they realise it or not.
Capitalism/Socialism
xyz;1342456 wrote: The leaders were educated, professional men, lawyers and doctors, and many army officers. Their arguments were published, and convinced many, as they attracted increasing support in the country, until they were ferociously persecuted and neutralised. They often took their inspiration from the Bible; they held that both Old and New Testaments supported their views, which were that all were equal before the law, and had every right to hold religious views as they saw fit. They believed that government should be fully democratic, which, had they had their way, would have led to some form of socialism, and may have radically changed the course of history. They condemned all violence committed in pursuit of religious matters.
None of those were the views of many of the powerful elite at the time, even though they claimed to follow the same Bible. They are of course what are thought decent and normal views in Western countries today. Due to the globalisation of capitalism, what we call democracies today do not have the power to alter much the ineluctable forces of capitalist cycles, as the USA in particular is discovering currently- but it is nevertheless Leveller views that most Westerners hold today, whether they realise it or not.
That's my point a burgeoning middle class, literate and beginning to reject the notion that all have their place in society. The catholic church tried to prevent prople reading the bible for themselves and burbed people at the stake for doing it. They knew they wopuld lose control as soon as pweoopke started thinking for themselves rather than just accept their station in life. Without the political language of reform and revolution in a religious socuiety people use what they have.
They believed that government should be fully democratic, which, had they had their way, would have led to some form of socialism, and may have radically changed the course of history. They condemned all violence committed in pursuit of religious matters.
Arguably they did - just not straight away.
Due to the globalisation of capitalism, what we call democracies today do not have the power to alter much the ineluctable forces of capitalist cycles, as the USA in particular is discovering currently- but it is nevertheless Leveller views that most Westerners hold today, whether they realise it or not.
Actually they do - they've just been persuaded they don't and that all is for the best the way things are. Particuklarly that they have non right to demand things from government despiote the fact they elect them. The genie is out the bottle and it's not going back in. Marx and the revolutionary socialists convinced themselves the only way to change was by revolution but the reality is change is a slowly rising tide that can'n be stiopped rather than a flash flood.
None of those were the views of many of the powerful elite at the time, even though they claimed to follow the same Bible. They are of course what are thought decent and normal views in Western countries today. Due to the globalisation of capitalism, what we call democracies today do not have the power to alter much the ineluctable forces of capitalist cycles, as the USA in particular is discovering currently- but it is nevertheless Leveller views that most Westerners hold today, whether they realise it or not.
That's my point a burgeoning middle class, literate and beginning to reject the notion that all have their place in society. The catholic church tried to prevent prople reading the bible for themselves and burbed people at the stake for doing it. They knew they wopuld lose control as soon as pweoopke started thinking for themselves rather than just accept their station in life. Without the political language of reform and revolution in a religious socuiety people use what they have.
They believed that government should be fully democratic, which, had they had their way, would have led to some form of socialism, and may have radically changed the course of history. They condemned all violence committed in pursuit of religious matters.
Arguably they did - just not straight away.
Due to the globalisation of capitalism, what we call democracies today do not have the power to alter much the ineluctable forces of capitalist cycles, as the USA in particular is discovering currently- but it is nevertheless Leveller views that most Westerners hold today, whether they realise it or not.
Actually they do - they've just been persuaded they don't and that all is for the best the way things are. Particuklarly that they have non right to demand things from government despiote the fact they elect them. The genie is out the bottle and it's not going back in. Marx and the revolutionary socialists convinced themselves the only way to change was by revolution but the reality is change is a slowly rising tide that can'n be stiopped rather than a flash flood.
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1342497 wrote: That's my point a burgeoning middle class, literate and beginning to reject the notion that all have their place in society.
That's not the point, though. The burgeoning middle class was divided, between those of socialist views and those of capitalist views. The latter murdered the former. That was how it was to go on. Violence has been as much a way of maintaining supremacy for capitalists as it was for feudal lords and their 'pope' instrument.
The catholic church tried to prevent prople reading the bible for themselves and burbed people at the stake for doing it.
But they opposed the capitalists, because they were growing used to creaming off the pelf that capitalism was increasingly producing. The capitalist class had no need of their services, as the landowning class had done, and had need of the profits. So the RCC was rejected. Of course, both RCC and capitalists opposed any idea of democracy or socialism.
That's not the point, though. The burgeoning middle class was divided, between those of socialist views and those of capitalist views. The latter murdered the former. That was how it was to go on. Violence has been as much a way of maintaining supremacy for capitalists as it was for feudal lords and their 'pope' instrument.
The catholic church tried to prevent prople reading the bible for themselves and burbed people at the stake for doing it.
But they opposed the capitalists, because they were growing used to creaming off the pelf that capitalism was increasingly producing. The capitalist class had no need of their services, as the landowning class had done, and had need of the profits. So the RCC was rejected. Of course, both RCC and capitalists opposed any idea of democracy or socialism.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Capitalism/Socialism
binbag;1342351 wrote: Christians should not in anyway become involved in political issues or profiteering. Christians should opt to be victims to the whims of the nonreligious as they make all decisions and laws??
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1342378 wrote: That is a laissez faire version of capitalism that is arguably anti-capitalist since no regulation will lead inevitably to the collapse of a capitalist economy.
Very nice. :yh_clap
Very nice. :yh_clap
Capitalism/Socialism
Accountable;1342560 wrote: Christians should opt to be victims to the whims of the nonreligious as they make all decisions and laws??There is no "opt"-in for Christians Accountable, Christians have to obey the laws of the land.
bb
bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Capitalism/Socialism
binbag;1342351 wrote: Christians should not in anyway become involved in political issues or profiteering. binbag;1342594 wrote: There is no "opt"-in for Christians Accountable, Christians have to obey the laws of the land.
bbI don't see the connection between these two statements.
bbI don't see the connection between these two statements.
Capitalism/Socialism
binbag;1342351 wrote: Christians should not in anyway become involved in political issues
Is there Scriptural precept for this statement?
Is there Scriptural precept for this statement?
Capitalism/Socialism
xyz;1342500 wrote: That's not the point, though. The burgeoning middle class was divided, between those of socialist views and those of capitalist views. The latter murdered the former. That was how it was to go on. Violence has been as much a way of maintaining supremacy for capitalists as it was for feudal lords and their 'pope' instrument.
But they opposed the capitalists, because they were growing used to creaming off the pelf that capitalism was increasingly producing. The capitalist class had no need of their services, as the landowning class had done, and had need of the profits. So the RCC was rejected. Of course, both RCC and capitalists opposed any idea of democracy or socialism.
More I would say between the land owning classes and the new middle classes who disliked the requirement to own properly. The essence is in the exchange between Rainsborough and Ireton.
“...for really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under...â€
Extract from Colonel Rainsborough's famous appeal for democratic rights for all men.
“...I think that no person hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom, and in determining or choosing those that shall determine what laws we shall be ruled by here — no person hath a right to this, that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom...â€
Extract from Henry Ireton's response to Rainsborough.
Yours Is not an argument I can entirely agree with, you can make a case for early socialist ideas coming through but imo you're only at the start of what could be called a capitalist economy and capitalist class and that really doesn't get going till you have wealth generated by controlling industry rather than agriculture. Economic power has to shift from the few to the many. Power and wealth were still in owning land with those who have a fixed interest in the kingdom. You get the same argument put forward in modern day politics - who should have a right to control government, everybody or those who generate and own the wealth or every man regardless of station, there are many who think the great unwashed are of little worth - nowadays they are called benefit scroungers and it's their fault we are in the parlous state we are.
Personally I would be on the side of the levellers.
But they opposed the capitalists, because they were growing used to creaming off the pelf that capitalism was increasingly producing. The capitalist class had no need of their services, as the landowning class had done, and had need of the profits. So the RCC was rejected. Of course, both RCC and capitalists opposed any idea of democracy or socialism.
More I would say between the land owning classes and the new middle classes who disliked the requirement to own properly. The essence is in the exchange between Rainsborough and Ireton.
“...for really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under...â€
Extract from Colonel Rainsborough's famous appeal for democratic rights for all men.
“...I think that no person hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom, and in determining or choosing those that shall determine what laws we shall be ruled by here — no person hath a right to this, that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom...â€
Extract from Henry Ireton's response to Rainsborough.
Yours Is not an argument I can entirely agree with, you can make a case for early socialist ideas coming through but imo you're only at the start of what could be called a capitalist economy and capitalist class and that really doesn't get going till you have wealth generated by controlling industry rather than agriculture. Economic power has to shift from the few to the many. Power and wealth were still in owning land with those who have a fixed interest in the kingdom. You get the same argument put forward in modern day politics - who should have a right to control government, everybody or those who generate and own the wealth or every man regardless of station, there are many who think the great unwashed are of little worth - nowadays they are called benefit scroungers and it's their fault we are in the parlous state we are.
Personally I would be on the side of the levellers.
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1342606 wrote: More I would say between the land owning classes and the new middle classes who disliked the requirement to own properly. The essence is in the exchange between Rainsborough and Ireton.
... which makes no mention of land, property or ownership of those. Neither man was a landowner, both fought against the king. The exchange illustrates perfectly the early rift between capitalist and socialist among the middle class.
... which makes no mention of land, property or ownership of those. Neither man was a landowner, both fought against the king. The exchange illustrates perfectly the early rift between capitalist and socialist among the middle class.
Capitalism/Socialism
Some very interesting discussion.
Back at the time of Jesus many farmers owned their own small farms. The problem was taxation. The elite living in the cities through their leadership taxed the farmers of a great deal of their produce. In fact many were so taxed that they did not have enough left to have an even half decent living. To make up for the difference they borrowed the wealth from the elites, who gladly loaned it knowing that the farmer could never pay it back Thus they were able to confiscate the land and rent it out to the former owners who then became tenant farmers who were then taxed even more. It is estimated that some 5% of the population were living off the hard labour of the 95% of the population, Crossan, Borg, Finkelstein and Silberman.
Now today we have about 10% or less of the population living off the other 90%. M. Fox. Yes the labourers are paid but precious little compared the the big corporation. Even Monsanto would like the patent the human genome.
So where did capitalism start? Good question.
Micah 6:8 has already been quoted, do justice, love kindness (compassion) and walk humbly with your God. Jesus taught that "true religion" was caring for the widows and orphans. However that is great widened in Matt. 25 where we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked etc. Jesus use of the word "justice" is considered today to be speaking of an equitable sharing of all the world's resources. Contrary to the beliefs of some Jesus was also concerned about the here and now and life on the earth and not just about the afterlife, which he clearly believed in. He did say that the "kingdom is within you."
As far as politics goes Jesus was indeed very political but as a nonviolent resister. That is what got him crucified. He was a **** disturber. His politics in seen in the parable of "render unto Caesar. One only had to notice that Jesus had to borrow a coin to point out the image. He refused to carry money with the emperor's image on it. His attack at the edge of the temple was a very political act. It had nothing to do with the money changers or the sellers of lambs and birds etc. One cannot expect a pilgrim, traveling miles over many days to carry his sacrifice. The sellers were conducting a legitimate business. The money changers were exchanging money for the coinage that was the only acceptable coinage at the temple. His was more an attack on the temple authorities for their collaboration with Rome and taking more then they were entitled to. Crossan, Borg, Brueggemann.
Capitalism is based on greed for money and control. Pure socialism is based on the greed for money and for control. In the book of Acts we find that the early church was indeed very socialist.(Communist?). They pooled their resources and each received according to their needs. Those who withheld were sent away from the community. "Capitalism: A Love Story" by Michael Moore.
John Ralston Saul has written a good book "The Unconscious Civilization" in which he clearly shows that at this time, in general a good deal of the world is controlled by the major corporations. It is really very simple. You pass a law that they don't like and they will close the plant (s) in your country and move on thus creating more unemployment. As far as I can see that is indeed evil.
Shalom
Ted
Back at the time of Jesus many farmers owned their own small farms. The problem was taxation. The elite living in the cities through their leadership taxed the farmers of a great deal of their produce. In fact many were so taxed that they did not have enough left to have an even half decent living. To make up for the difference they borrowed the wealth from the elites, who gladly loaned it knowing that the farmer could never pay it back Thus they were able to confiscate the land and rent it out to the former owners who then became tenant farmers who were then taxed even more. It is estimated that some 5% of the population were living off the hard labour of the 95% of the population, Crossan, Borg, Finkelstein and Silberman.
Now today we have about 10% or less of the population living off the other 90%. M. Fox. Yes the labourers are paid but precious little compared the the big corporation. Even Monsanto would like the patent the human genome.
So where did capitalism start? Good question.
Micah 6:8 has already been quoted, do justice, love kindness (compassion) and walk humbly with your God. Jesus taught that "true religion" was caring for the widows and orphans. However that is great widened in Matt. 25 where we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked etc. Jesus use of the word "justice" is considered today to be speaking of an equitable sharing of all the world's resources. Contrary to the beliefs of some Jesus was also concerned about the here and now and life on the earth and not just about the afterlife, which he clearly believed in. He did say that the "kingdom is within you."
As far as politics goes Jesus was indeed very political but as a nonviolent resister. That is what got him crucified. He was a **** disturber. His politics in seen in the parable of "render unto Caesar. One only had to notice that Jesus had to borrow a coin to point out the image. He refused to carry money with the emperor's image on it. His attack at the edge of the temple was a very political act. It had nothing to do with the money changers or the sellers of lambs and birds etc. One cannot expect a pilgrim, traveling miles over many days to carry his sacrifice. The sellers were conducting a legitimate business. The money changers were exchanging money for the coinage that was the only acceptable coinage at the temple. His was more an attack on the temple authorities for their collaboration with Rome and taking more then they were entitled to. Crossan, Borg, Brueggemann.
Capitalism is based on greed for money and control. Pure socialism is based on the greed for money and for control. In the book of Acts we find that the early church was indeed very socialist.(Communist?). They pooled their resources and each received according to their needs. Those who withheld were sent away from the community. "Capitalism: A Love Story" by Michael Moore.
John Ralston Saul has written a good book "The Unconscious Civilization" in which he clearly shows that at this time, in general a good deal of the world is controlled by the major corporations. It is really very simple. You pass a law that they don't like and they will close the plant (s) in your country and move on thus creating more unemployment. As far as I can see that is indeed evil.
Shalom
Ted
Capitalism/Socialism
xyz;1342616 wrote: ... which makes no mention of land, property or ownership of those. Neither man was a landowner, both fought against the king. The exchange illustrates perfectly the early rift between capitalist and socialist among the middle class.
Actually rainsborough was having inherited from his father as the eldest son. If anything he had more of a claim to be a capitalist then ireton. I disagree with you. I think it's too early to talk about capitalists and socialists within the middle class, that kind of divisiion is too simplistic and assumes capitalism is a clear monolithic political philosophy with clear goals like communism supposedly has. It's just not that simple a matter. You can see the economic changes and developments in society that were lead to such distinctions in class and the rise of an urban working class but it's not a simple matter of capitalist against socialist. Marx pinched most of his ideas from other people, he was an inheritor of ideas rather than an originator and he got it badly wrong when he saw a logical progression from capitalism to communism, communism is an arrogant intellectual poltitical philosophy that saw ordinary people as ignorant fools that needed to be led by their betters, as such it has more in common with what you call the capitalists than the levellers who at least recognised that each man must make his own choice in these matters. Cromwell and ireton saw themselves as the natural leaders of society an arrogance that has nothing to do with capitalism and more to do with seeing themselves as better than the great unwashed of society.
Actually rainsborough was having inherited from his father as the eldest son. If anything he had more of a claim to be a capitalist then ireton. I disagree with you. I think it's too early to talk about capitalists and socialists within the middle class, that kind of divisiion is too simplistic and assumes capitalism is a clear monolithic political philosophy with clear goals like communism supposedly has. It's just not that simple a matter. You can see the economic changes and developments in society that were lead to such distinctions in class and the rise of an urban working class but it's not a simple matter of capitalist against socialist. Marx pinched most of his ideas from other people, he was an inheritor of ideas rather than an originator and he got it badly wrong when he saw a logical progression from capitalism to communism, communism is an arrogant intellectual poltitical philosophy that saw ordinary people as ignorant fools that needed to be led by their betters, as such it has more in common with what you call the capitalists than the levellers who at least recognised that each man must make his own choice in these matters. Cromwell and ireton saw themselves as the natural leaders of society an arrogance that has nothing to do with capitalism and more to do with seeing themselves as better than the great unwashed of society.
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1342684 wrote: Actually rainsborough was having inherited from his father as the eldest son. If anything he had more of a claim to be a capitalist then ireton.
Unless he inherited a factory, an unlikely event, his father being a seafarer, he was nearer to the landed aristocracy than to capitalism!
I disagree with you. I think it's too early to talk about capitalists and socialists within the middle class, that kind of divisiion is too simplistic and assumes capitalism is a clear monolithic political philosophy with clear goals like communism supposedly has.
Capitalism has and always had the clear imperative of extracting maximum value from labour. The early capitalists certainly did that, creating working conditions that had men exhausted from long, arduous work, and yet still in poverty. It is no surprise that they brutally opposed the Levellers.
Unless he inherited a factory, an unlikely event, his father being a seafarer, he was nearer to the landed aristocracy than to capitalism!
I disagree with you. I think it's too early to talk about capitalists and socialists within the middle class, that kind of divisiion is too simplistic and assumes capitalism is a clear monolithic political philosophy with clear goals like communism supposedly has.
Capitalism has and always had the clear imperative of extracting maximum value from labour. The early capitalists certainly did that, creating working conditions that had men exhausted from long, arduous work, and yet still in poverty. It is no surprise that they brutally opposed the Levellers.
Capitalism/Socialism
Accountable;1342596 wrote: I don't see the connection between these two statements.I didn't intend there be one Accountable.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
Capitalism/Socialism
xyz;1342598 wrote: Is there Scriptural precept for this statement?
xyz, as you know, governments the world over are full of men and women who are deceitful liars who are only in politics for their own advantage, status, financial gain, power.(to name but a few)
You won’t find any mention in the bible where Jesus or any of the apostles taught believers how to reform the world of its immoral, and corrupt practices via the government.
You cannot serve two masters.
Lk 16:13
13 No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
It would have been easy for Jesus to accept Satan’s offer to reign over all the governments of the world. (but He didn’t)
xyz, as you know, governments the world over are full of men and women who are deceitful liars who are only in politics for their own advantage, status, financial gain, power.(to name but a few)
You won’t find any mention in the bible where Jesus or any of the apostles taught believers how to reform the world of its immoral, and corrupt practices via the government.
You cannot serve two masters.
Lk 16:13
13 No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
It would have been easy for Jesus to accept Satan’s offer to reign over all the governments of the world. (but He didn’t)
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
Capitalism/Socialism
xyz;1342686 wrote: Unless he inherited a factory, an unlikely event, his father being a seafarer, he was nearer to the landed aristocracy than to capitalism!
Capitalism has and always had the clear imperative of extracting maximum value from labour. The early capitalists certainly did that, creating working conditions that had men exhausted from long, arduous work, and yet still in poverty. It is no surprise that they brutally opposed the Levellers.
The family fortune was probably made through trade (I haven't checked) which would put him firmly as a potential capitalist, more so than cromwell and ireton, with a fortune made through trade rather than owning land. Anyway it's academic it's never has been as simple as capitalist or socialist, this but not that, this is right at the middle of the period when the middle classes were beginning to feel their worth and push for change they weren't ready to extend power to everybody yet people were questioning the "natural " order of society and an increasingly literate and articulate working class was coming in to being. On one level you can claim cromwell and the grandees were early capitalists but there hostility to the levellers was because they questioned the natural order of society as they saw it, keeping down the peasants is more like it.
Capitalism has and always had the clear imperative of extracting maximum value from labour.
Not it hasn't, there were many who saw the need to provide good working conditions and pay decent wages not only as a moral duty buit also it was basic common sense and good management, it is also something adam smith put a strong case for. How would you describe robert owen for example, capitalist or socialist? Quite clearly he was both. The early co-operative and mutual aid societies we now regard as being early socialism but you can hardly claim they were inspired by socialist writers.
Capitalism has and always had the clear imperative of extracting maximum value from labour. The early capitalists certainly did that, creating working conditions that had men exhausted from long, arduous work, and yet still in poverty. It is no surprise that they brutally opposed the Levellers.
The family fortune was probably made through trade (I haven't checked) which would put him firmly as a potential capitalist, more so than cromwell and ireton, with a fortune made through trade rather than owning land. Anyway it's academic it's never has been as simple as capitalist or socialist, this but not that, this is right at the middle of the period when the middle classes were beginning to feel their worth and push for change they weren't ready to extend power to everybody yet people were questioning the "natural " order of society and an increasingly literate and articulate working class was coming in to being. On one level you can claim cromwell and the grandees were early capitalists but there hostility to the levellers was because they questioned the natural order of society as they saw it, keeping down the peasants is more like it.
Capitalism has and always had the clear imperative of extracting maximum value from labour.
Not it hasn't, there were many who saw the need to provide good working conditions and pay decent wages not only as a moral duty buit also it was basic common sense and good management, it is also something adam smith put a strong case for. How would you describe robert owen for example, capitalist or socialist? Quite clearly he was both. The early co-operative and mutual aid societies we now regard as being early socialism but you can hardly claim they were inspired by socialist writers.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Capitalism/Socialism
binbag;1342697 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1342596][QUOTE=binbag;1342594][QUOTE=Accountable;1342560][QUOTE=binbag;1342351]Christians should not in anyway become involved in political issues or profiteering. Christians should opt to be victims to the whims of the nonreligious as they make all decisions and laws??[/QUOTE]There is no "opt"-in for Christians Accountable, Christians have to obey the laws of the land.[/QUOTE]I don't see the connection between these two statements.[/QUOTE]I didn't intend there be one Accountable.[/QUOTE]Then why on earth quote my post as if you're responding to it? It makes no sense. You make statement; I quote you & respond with a question; you quote me & respond with another statement. How could you not intend for them to be connected?? You connected them.
Capitalism/Socialism
binbag;1342698 wrote: xyz, as you know, governments the world over are full of men and women who are deceitful liars who are only in politics for their own advantage, status, financial gain, power.(to name but a few)
They are? How does anyone know that? Undoubtedly some are less than they should be, but it seems to me that other politicians are very sincere and well-meaning people, working for the best solutions, and are often highly competent, too. We should be grateful.
You won’t find any mention in the bible where Jesus or any of the apostles taught believers how to reform the world of its immoral, and corrupt practices via the government.
Very true, but that does not mean that Christians cannot take part in government as individuals, as Joseph, Daniel and others did in both Testaments. Paul was to take the gospel to the highest earthly places, remember. And Christians are supposed to be 'the salt of the earth'. The point of the gospel is to make the earth a better place.
You cannot serve two masters.
Lk 16:13
13 No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
True- but that does not mean that politicians should not be paid reasonably!
It would have been easy for Jesus to accept Satan’s offer to reign over all the governments of the world. (but He didn’t)
I don't think that's the ambition of many politicians today. The last one to try that finished his days unsuccessfully, in a bunker.
They are? How does anyone know that? Undoubtedly some are less than they should be, but it seems to me that other politicians are very sincere and well-meaning people, working for the best solutions, and are often highly competent, too. We should be grateful.
You won’t find any mention in the bible where Jesus or any of the apostles taught believers how to reform the world of its immoral, and corrupt practices via the government.
Very true, but that does not mean that Christians cannot take part in government as individuals, as Joseph, Daniel and others did in both Testaments. Paul was to take the gospel to the highest earthly places, remember. And Christians are supposed to be 'the salt of the earth'. The point of the gospel is to make the earth a better place.
You cannot serve two masters.
Lk 16:13
13 No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
True- but that does not mean that politicians should not be paid reasonably!
It would have been easy for Jesus to accept Satan’s offer to reign over all the governments of the world. (but He didn’t)
I don't think that's the ambition of many politicians today. The last one to try that finished his days unsuccessfully, in a bunker.
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1342699 wrote: How would you describe robert owen
As one who thought that capitalism was inhumane. Which it had been, from Cromwell's day and before, in the way I mentioned previously. Owen saw that, in order to sell products, capital had to create a large, more affluent market, so he acted on one of the contradictions of capitalism, that of attempting to sell to those that one exploits. He wasn't just a nice fellow. The same problem attends politicians today.
As one who thought that capitalism was inhumane. Which it had been, from Cromwell's day and before, in the way I mentioned previously. Owen saw that, in order to sell products, capital had to create a large, more affluent market, so he acted on one of the contradictions of capitalism, that of attempting to sell to those that one exploits. He wasn't just a nice fellow. The same problem attends politicians today.
Capitalism/Socialism
Accountable;1342706 wrote: Then why on earth quote my post as if you're responding to it? It makes no sense. You make statement; I quote you & respond with a question; you quote me & respond with another statement. How could you not intend for them to be connected?? You connected them.Yes, I see now, I've caused confusion Accountable.
Accountable;1342560 wrote: Christians should opt to be victims to the whims of the nonreligious as they make all decisions and laws??If you could explain further what you meant by that, it may help me.
bb
Accountable;1342560 wrote: Christians should opt to be victims to the whims of the nonreligious as they make all decisions and laws??If you could explain further what you meant by that, it may help me.
bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1342699 wrote: [QUOTE=xyz;1342686]Capitalism has and always had the clear imperative of extracting maximum value from labour.
Not it hasn't, there were many who saw the need to provide good working conditions and pay decent wages not only as a moral duty buit also it was basic common sense and good management, it is also something adam smith put a strong case for. [/QUOTE]Gents, your statements aren't mutually exclusive. One can get much more value out of an employee by providing good working conditions, etc, NOT from exhausting them.
Not it hasn't, there were many who saw the need to provide good working conditions and pay decent wages not only as a moral duty buit also it was basic common sense and good management, it is also something adam smith put a strong case for. [/QUOTE]Gents, your statements aren't mutually exclusive. One can get much more value out of an employee by providing good working conditions, etc, NOT from exhausting them.
Capitalism/Socialism
Accountable;1342719 wrote: Gents, your statements aren't mutually exclusive. One can get much more value out of an employee by providing good working conditions, etc, NOT from exhausting them.
That depends on conditions. When labour is plentiful, and markets are no problem, workers can be worked to early graves. Where labour is short, and/or where markets are drying up, workers must be treated well.
That depends on conditions. When labour is plentiful, and markets are no problem, workers can be worked to early graves. Where labour is short, and/or where markets are drying up, workers must be treated well.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Capitalism/Socialism
binbag;1342717 wrote: Yes, I see now, I've caused confusion Accountable.
If you could explain further what you meant by that, it may help me.
bbXYZ covered it well in post 30. I'm comfortable reading your response to him.
If you could explain further what you meant by that, it may help me.
bbXYZ covered it well in post 30. I'm comfortable reading your response to him.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Capitalism/Socialism
yaaarrrgg;1342435 wrote: The God of the old testement sounds more like a bloodthirsty capitalist.
How so? If you read all of what especially the minor prophets wrote condemning the rich and the powerful who did not help the poor, you might end up wondering where the hell this rightwing version of Christianity came from! One things for sure, they have to do a lot of cherrypicking through the Bible, in order to find verses that back libertarian capitalism.
The Parable of the Talents is one that is often cited as Jesus teaching the values of wise investing....but that's because they have twisted it to suit their own ends. When I was on a conservative forum that included a lot of religious right fanatics, I could never get a clear answer to the socialism found in the Book of Acts -- especially the examples of the wealthy Christian followers - Ananias, and Sapphira -- who were slain by the Holy Spirit for withholding some of their earnings from selling their own property. They were running a real communist system here, where everyone had to sell their belongings and contribute to the common pool, and just trying to keep some of the money for personal use brought a death sentence, for violating that rule of holding all things in common!
I'm not saying that I would agree with this kind of extreme socialist ideology....or that it is even practical -- but how do modern conservative capitalist church leaders get away with ignoring it, and preaching the exact opposite? It's further proof that a religion's dogma is made up of what they want to believe, rather than what's written in their holy books.
From what I can tell the libertarian leanings (in the U.S. religious right) come not from the teachings of Jesus, but the psychotic babblings in Revelation, where where the government has too much power and forces everyone to get marks on their heads. That's not socialism either, it's just nuttiness.
My theory is that they just pull it out of another bodily orifice because they want a theology that represents their personal philosophy of life.
How so? If you read all of what especially the minor prophets wrote condemning the rich and the powerful who did not help the poor, you might end up wondering where the hell this rightwing version of Christianity came from! One things for sure, they have to do a lot of cherrypicking through the Bible, in order to find verses that back libertarian capitalism.
The Parable of the Talents is one that is often cited as Jesus teaching the values of wise investing....but that's because they have twisted it to suit their own ends. When I was on a conservative forum that included a lot of religious right fanatics, I could never get a clear answer to the socialism found in the Book of Acts -- especially the examples of the wealthy Christian followers - Ananias, and Sapphira -- who were slain by the Holy Spirit for withholding some of their earnings from selling their own property. They were running a real communist system here, where everyone had to sell their belongings and contribute to the common pool, and just trying to keep some of the money for personal use brought a death sentence, for violating that rule of holding all things in common!
I'm not saying that I would agree with this kind of extreme socialist ideology....or that it is even practical -- but how do modern conservative capitalist church leaders get away with ignoring it, and preaching the exact opposite? It's further proof that a religion's dogma is made up of what they want to believe, rather than what's written in their holy books.
From what I can tell the libertarian leanings (in the U.S. religious right) come not from the teachings of Jesus, but the psychotic babblings in Revelation, where where the government has too much power and forces everyone to get marks on their heads. That's not socialism either, it's just nuttiness.
My theory is that they just pull it out of another bodily orifice because they want a theology that represents their personal philosophy of life.
Capitalism/Socialism
recovering conservative;1342726 wrote: who were slain by the Holy Spirit
Is that true?
Is that true?
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Capitalism/Socialism
binbag;1342698 wrote: xyz, as you know, governments the world over are full of men and women who are deceitful liars who are only in politics for their own advantage, status, financial gain, power.(to name but a few)
You won’t find any mention in the bible where Jesus or any of the apostles taught believers how to reform the world of its immoral, and corrupt practices via the government.
You cannot serve two masters.
Lk 16:13
13 No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
It would have been easy for Jesus to accept Satan’s offer to reign over all the governments of the world. (but He didn’t)
Are you familiar with all of the New Testament verses that indicate that Jesus and his disciples believed that they were living in the last days? 1st century Christians were essentially a Jewish endtime cult....and there were a number of others who were trying to interpret the Book of Daniel and other OT prophecies, and decided that the end of days was coming soon. And under those circumstances -- with time running short -- evangelizing was the most important thing to do, not how to make money, or how to run a government, or a court system. But after the close of the 1st Century, Christians started realizing that -- either their calculations were off, or they better start interpreting a lot of this stuff as allegories for personal redemption and salvation. Which is pretty much what the Catholic Church did when they got out of the endtimes business. They were stuck with all of those dilemmas, like: how to run a Christian government, or set up a court system, or even fully map out a system of ethics that is not fully spelled out in the New Testament. That's why some theologians of the dark ages, like Thomas Aquinas, started searching for copies of Aristotle's and other writings by the classic Greek philosophers. Early on, the Church had burned all of this stuff, along with everything that could be considered heresy, and most of the copies they received had been preserved in libraries of the Muslim Caliphate.
But now, what do Christians do, if like the JW's or the Amish and Mennonites, they decide that being "no part of this world" means not voting, or playing any role in secular society? Somebody has to run the system, regardless of how corruptible people are, and Christians are forced to either participate or withdraw and hope that their lack of participation doesn't further strengthen tyrants and despots, who might decide they are easy targets to wipe out!
You won’t find any mention in the bible where Jesus or any of the apostles taught believers how to reform the world of its immoral, and corrupt practices via the government.
You cannot serve two masters.
Lk 16:13
13 No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
It would have been easy for Jesus to accept Satan’s offer to reign over all the governments of the world. (but He didn’t)
Are you familiar with all of the New Testament verses that indicate that Jesus and his disciples believed that they were living in the last days? 1st century Christians were essentially a Jewish endtime cult....and there were a number of others who were trying to interpret the Book of Daniel and other OT prophecies, and decided that the end of days was coming soon. And under those circumstances -- with time running short -- evangelizing was the most important thing to do, not how to make money, or how to run a government, or a court system. But after the close of the 1st Century, Christians started realizing that -- either their calculations were off, or they better start interpreting a lot of this stuff as allegories for personal redemption and salvation. Which is pretty much what the Catholic Church did when they got out of the endtimes business. They were stuck with all of those dilemmas, like: how to run a Christian government, or set up a court system, or even fully map out a system of ethics that is not fully spelled out in the New Testament. That's why some theologians of the dark ages, like Thomas Aquinas, started searching for copies of Aristotle's and other writings by the classic Greek philosophers. Early on, the Church had burned all of this stuff, along with everything that could be considered heresy, and most of the copies they received had been preserved in libraries of the Muslim Caliphate.
But now, what do Christians do, if like the JW's or the Amish and Mennonites, they decide that being "no part of this world" means not voting, or playing any role in secular society? Somebody has to run the system, regardless of how corruptible people are, and Christians are forced to either participate or withdraw and hope that their lack of participation doesn't further strengthen tyrants and despots, who might decide they are easy targets to wipe out!
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Capitalism/Socialism
xyz;1342727 wrote: Is that true?
I wasn't there to see it, but according to the source you believe in:
3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
Acts 5-5 - Passage Lookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com
I wasn't there to see it, but according to the source you believe in:
3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
Acts 5-5 - Passage Lookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com
Capitalism/Socialism
recovering conservative;1342730 wrote: I wasn't there to see it
Ah. And Luke didn't say that, either.
Ah. And Luke didn't say that, either.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Capitalism/Socialism
xyz;1342732 wrote: Ah. And Luke didn't say that, either.
So what? I'm not debating Bible interpreting here! Acts says what it says, and my questions are: why? And why aren't all Christian fundamentalists socialists, if they really believe they have to follow everything that's written in their scriptures?
So what? I'm not debating Bible interpreting here! Acts says what it says, and my questions are: why? And why aren't all Christian fundamentalists socialists, if they really believe they have to follow everything that's written in their scriptures?
Capitalism/Socialism
recovering conservative;1342735 wrote: So what?
So it's unjustified to write:
'Ananias, and Sapphira -- who were slain by the Holy Spirit'
So it's unjustified to write:
'Ananias, and Sapphira -- who were slain by the Holy Spirit'
Capitalism/Socialism
xyz;1342712 wrote: As one who thought that capitalism was inhumane. Which it had been, from Cromwell's day and before, in the way I mentioned previously. Owen saw that, in order to sell products, capital had to create a large, more affluent market, so he acted on one of the contradictions of capitalism, that of attempting to sell to those that one exploits. He wasn't just a nice fellow. The same problem attends politicians today.
Where do you get the idea that capitalism is all about exploitation and that paying decent wages to generate an affluent workforce who can buy your products and those of others helps generate wealth all round is a contradiction? It's not a contradiction it's at the heart of it all. In practice capitalists will exploit their workforce and work to create monopolies and keep out competition - and so destroy a capitalist economy. Yiou need laws i place to stop them doing that. The recognition of that fact is why adam smith advocated regulation in order to stop those excesses take place. It's a realisation of the brutal reality that men are shits to each other and in a fair and just society there would be control in place. He never advocated laissez faire capitalism that came along later, to some extent because industrialists wanted to keep the taxman and his import and export tariffs away but also because they wanted the right to exploit those who worked for them. So let's forget ordinary decency and what's wrong with eighteen hour working days they wouldn't be doing anything else anyway. That it was counter productive took a while to sink in. They wanted the freedom to make as much profit as they liked and bugger the consequences for anyone that got in their way. The wealth of nations also contained the kernels of socialism in it's pages, like free education for all and ready access to further education because that led to the betterment of all. Capitalism isn't inhumane people are, it's a way of organising an economy to allow freedom for people to make the best of it for themselves and others, socialism is a way of ordering society that addresses the basic problem as to whom should benefit from the wealth a society generates, one can stifle the other but neither can exist without the other as the extremes of both don't work. It's not a religion with set doctrines to follow you need to be somewhere in the middle, that works, when you remove all the controls you get what is happening now. The states has destroyed it's own industrial base and lowered the wages of it's workforce all for short term profit and it's going to take years to recover. We've done the same to the extent 60% of our GDP is down to one industry - financial services. Only a complete idiot would believe being dependant on one sector is a good idea, but that was maggie for you. I think monetarism will go down in history as one of the stupidest economic theories of all time. That's what has failed but It's not capitalism.
Where do you get the idea that capitalism is all about exploitation and that paying decent wages to generate an affluent workforce who can buy your products and those of others helps generate wealth all round is a contradiction? It's not a contradiction it's at the heart of it all. In practice capitalists will exploit their workforce and work to create monopolies and keep out competition - and so destroy a capitalist economy. Yiou need laws i place to stop them doing that. The recognition of that fact is why adam smith advocated regulation in order to stop those excesses take place. It's a realisation of the brutal reality that men are shits to each other and in a fair and just society there would be control in place. He never advocated laissez faire capitalism that came along later, to some extent because industrialists wanted to keep the taxman and his import and export tariffs away but also because they wanted the right to exploit those who worked for them. So let's forget ordinary decency and what's wrong with eighteen hour working days they wouldn't be doing anything else anyway. That it was counter productive took a while to sink in. They wanted the freedom to make as much profit as they liked and bugger the consequences for anyone that got in their way. The wealth of nations also contained the kernels of socialism in it's pages, like free education for all and ready access to further education because that led to the betterment of all. Capitalism isn't inhumane people are, it's a way of organising an economy to allow freedom for people to make the best of it for themselves and others, socialism is a way of ordering society that addresses the basic problem as to whom should benefit from the wealth a society generates, one can stifle the other but neither can exist without the other as the extremes of both don't work. It's not a religion with set doctrines to follow you need to be somewhere in the middle, that works, when you remove all the controls you get what is happening now. The states has destroyed it's own industrial base and lowered the wages of it's workforce all for short term profit and it's going to take years to recover. We've done the same to the extent 60% of our GDP is down to one industry - financial services. Only a complete idiot would believe being dependant on one sector is a good idea, but that was maggie for you. I think monetarism will go down in history as one of the stupidest economic theories of all time. That's what has failed but It's not capitalism.
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc
I can agree with those points. In fact capitalism has become a tool of the greedy. In that case capitalism has been used for control and to enhance greed. Not good. Perhaps even evil.
Shalom
Ted
I can agree with those points. In fact capitalism has become a tool of the greedy. In that case capitalism has been used for control and to enhance greed. Not good. Perhaps even evil.
Shalom
Ted
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1342739 wrote: the idea that capitalism is all about exploitation
Was alluded to in post #8. One may suppose that it meets general agreement.
Was alluded to in post #8. One may suppose that it meets general agreement.
Capitalism/Socialism
When we go back to the time of Jesus we find that greed was rampant. 90-95% of the people were being bled of their ability to make even a hint of a decent living. The rich taxed as much as they could get and families were often left without enough for the winter. To stay alive they had to borrow money from the top echelons of society and when they couldn't pay it back they lost their lands and became tenant farmers. A form of capitalism>
Jesus message was too society that the people were not being treated properly and that this should change. Witness. Nothing has changed in the last 2000 years. Greed still runs wild and the disparity between the haves and have nots. Again here we go again.
Far too many folks think that the only thing Jesus was concerned about was being saved to get to heave or the kingdom. This however couldn't be further from the truth. In Micah 6:8 we see that God requires that we "do justice (equitable sharing of the earth's resources), love kindness (compassion) and walk humbly with our God. In the NT we are told that true religion is looking after the widows and orphans. In Matt. 25 those who fed the hungry, cared for the sick dying, clothed the naked etc. are welcomed into the kingdom. God's kingdom was already here, "The Kingdom is within you". We simply have to grab hold. This is not to deny some future consummation as even Jesus believed in eternal life. Jesus work was also for the here and now.
We are required to fight oppression, greed, exploitation etc. and share the earths resources equitably. This we are not doing. We fail.
Shalom
Ted.
Jesus message was too society that the people were not being treated properly and that this should change. Witness. Nothing has changed in the last 2000 years. Greed still runs wild and the disparity between the haves and have nots. Again here we go again.
Far too many folks think that the only thing Jesus was concerned about was being saved to get to heave or the kingdom. This however couldn't be further from the truth. In Micah 6:8 we see that God requires that we "do justice (equitable sharing of the earth's resources), love kindness (compassion) and walk humbly with our God. In the NT we are told that true religion is looking after the widows and orphans. In Matt. 25 those who fed the hungry, cared for the sick dying, clothed the naked etc. are welcomed into the kingdom. God's kingdom was already here, "The Kingdom is within you". We simply have to grab hold. This is not to deny some future consummation as even Jesus believed in eternal life. Jesus work was also for the here and now.
We are required to fight oppression, greed, exploitation etc. and share the earths resources equitably. This we are not doing. We fail.
Shalom
Ted.
Capitalism/Socialism
Accountable;1342596 wrote: I don't see the connection between these two statements.
Would you agree that spiritual leaders should not become embroiled in temporal affairs?
Would you agree that spiritual leaders should not become embroiled in temporal affairs?
Capitalism/Socialism
That raises a question in my mind. Should one stand back and watch oppression and tyranny without speaking out just because that person is Christian, Buddhist etc.?
Shalom
Ted
Shalom
Ted
Capitalism/Socialism
If Canadian veterans are being short changed by the government should we not speak out?
Shalom
Ted
Shalom
Ted
Capitalism/Socialism
An interesting comment on today's society.
YouTube - Lazyboy - Underwear Goes Inside The Pants
Shalom
Ted
YouTube - Lazyboy - Underwear Goes Inside The Pants
Shalom
Ted