Marxism.

[Mr. Hyde]

There's no forum for politics...so I'm guessing this is the right spot?


What do you you think of socialism? Would it work in America? Why/why not? Is it a morally sound governmental structure?

Explain.

[puritan lad]

Socialism in all forms is of the Devil. It is unbiblical, built on theft and coveteousness. It has killed millions, and doesn't even help the poor that it claims to. (It is really a form of State Worship/Caesar Worship).

See Christians and Political Economics

[KrisW]

I think it is VERY interesting that the reason Marx was an atheist is because he became disillusioned by 'religion' because his father converted the whole family from Judaism to Luthernism just ot 'fit in'.

I also think the adage of Marx "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds like something Jesus Himself could of said.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

You title the tread Marxism and talk about socialism? Oh well. I don't think socialism works at all. If it did, would the Brits with "free" health care be pulling their own teeth and delivering their own babies? Would Canadians be coming to the US for our not-so-free health care? This is just socialism in the realm of health care mind you.

[Ashley]

I wasn't brought up in China but I have worked in China for some time so I guess I would be able to say something about Marxism.

The communist China is still now named communist party but the TV broadcast and propaganda repeatedly name themselves "socialists" . I can tell what socialism is sorta akin to what Winston is living as in a novel: "1984" (the ficton written by George Orwell, have any of you ever read it?)

Getting along with some indigenous in China, I perceive that they have strong belief about a commonly shared society. To the extreme before open door policy of China in 1979, all resources, money and possessions were put together and rationed to everyone of the population. So wealthy people in those days were expropriated of their properties and intellectual guys were tried and jailed. Extremists were rampant and it was radical that destitute was "ethical" and "glorious". You might question: why work for efficency of resource usage and production? They believe that achievements and inventions were attained with Gullever's effect. - the old adage: "Many hands make things work" - a giant robot gets through with every individual of a population resembling a bolt in a machine [without self,wihtou privacy, without own achievement, without own possession]

I bet that no one would like Marxists communism. It is against human natural traits and personality. It simply sounds like ethical but in effect, corruption can be dreadful. If "shared resources" and "shared intelligence" were accumulated in "coffers" for equal share of the whole population, who manages these resources and intelligence? Who guard these managers? you know perfectionist and heroics are crappy, uttering highly unconvincing promises: "I vow that I am honest and I do not steal" Who believes him? The corrupted practice like consuming the coffers under cover of "ethical reason of serving the public" is beyond all sketch of imagination. Who can judge if the managers eating out with business partners in a French brasseries were enjoying for personal purposes colluding with the business partners?

Just like one of our clients, it was initially a state-owned enterprise and now transformed into a private enterprise. The indigenous senior officers dare not take salaries for fear of people's accussation of "selfishness" and "not great enough". They refund back to the employer and their salaries are simply "paper record". We all know that it is abnormal. Who will have incentive to work if they don't earn? AS such, you might find a typical Chinese grown up in China need only be "ethically great" before fitting in with the society and grasping power in an organisation.

no we don't have evidence but such officers can live a life more luxurious than you and me. They take from the organisation coffers to buy cars and houses to compensate their work. The other day you may find them eating out in high-ranked restaurant reading newspaper. Ironically, they never own the cars or the houses but they are made to sign a IOU indebting themselves millions of dollar to the organisation. Worse still, the open door policy has begun only for 27 years. Most of these senior officers had seedy history and not measure up at all with the benchmark in developed countries.

Such ethos is pandemic the whole country. Talking with a senior officer in an organisation in China, his power is great enough to fire a staff, but he speaks like a wimp.

An uneducated or sleazily grown-up like cab-driver may abruptly sit in an air-conditioned room, just because the leaders and the authorities are of the same type, and they take special care of them, rebuffing people's accussation of favoritism! Goodness! [i am not going to be discrminating; imagine what if an uneducated farmer is to be US president? ]

Educated people from overseas are dubbed "intellectuals" and looked at just like a "tool" to feed the appetite of the authority to hijiack their work as their own achievements. [they excuse it away as selfless sacrifice for the whole, like communistizing the event. Things like these are condemnable by you and me. factually staff are poorly exploited here and there in China] No wonder in those days Albert Einstein did not go to China but to USA instead. It wasn't because China was impoverished, but because the corrupted authority and warped-minded social value distorts what the society should have looked like.

Communists are atheists. Outrageously they proclaim to be atheists. If they do out of socialism, Chinese government is evil power and socialism stem from Satan.

.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The communist China is still now named communist party but the TV broadcast and propaganda repeatedly name themselves "socialists" . I can tell what socialism is sorta akin to what Winston is living as in a novel: "1984" (the ficton written by George Orwell, have any of you ever read it?)

George Orwell was a socialist, so I don't think 1984 would be written against socialism. I have only read bits and pieces of 1984, so he might be attacking other things that occur in a socialist government. But it's really hard to tell the difference between socialism and communism. One phrase I have heard is that socialism is communism with its gloves still on.

[Canuckster1127]

Marxism? You mean these guys?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Well,

It seems all of you think Marxism-socialism is Evil...and I would agree. But then so are all the other forms of governing-isms, including your favorite,* whatever it may be. All are nothing more than human inventions, and humans are tainted by evil while still in the womb.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of the world rather than on Christ.
-Col 2:8

FL

*and mine, which happens to be Absolute Monarchy.

[Ashley]

The communist China is still now named communist party but the TV broadcast and propaganda repeatedly name themselves "socialists" . I can tell what socialism is sorta akin to what Winston is living as in a novel: "1984" (the ficton written by George Orwell, have any of you ever read it?)

George Orwell was a socialist, so I don't think 1984 would be written against socialism. I have only read bits and pieces of 1984, so he might be attacking other things that occur in a socialist government. But it's really hard to tell the difference between socialism and communism. One phrase I have heard is that socialism is communism with its gloves still on.

No body ever told me what "socialism" means and how it contrasts with "communism". As I was in China, I felt like nothing has any definition; I trust that China is an evil country, because "whenever nothing is clearly defined", I would say that it is always rhetorics of politicians that exploit the citizens and deprive them of what they are entitled to know.

I would think that "socialism" is simply a term to describe a situation: the communists want to look like what the G7 countries do, but they themselves continue to corrupt in communists' way - an absolute rapacious and vicious practice to hide the greeds of authority at the expense of innocent and industrious public, ok?

It is simply another form of tyranny grounding down the people, in a highly deceptive way to deprive people of their rights to know, their rights to complain and their rights to knowledge. It's very vile.

.

[Seraph]

Interesting, I just recently finished reading 1984. In my opinion, I think its more written against totalitarian dictatorships than socialism.
However, I've also had suspicions that it could also be a jab at religion. It's crossed my mind that the Party could represent religion and "Big Brother" is supposed to represent God. I'd be sad if this were the case though because I thought it was a very interesting book.

As for the difference between socialism and communism, we JUST went over this today in government. I recall that it has something to do with socialism being labeled as an "evolutionary" theory, while communism is a "revolutionary" theory. I believe that in communism, the central government has a lot more power.

[Canuckster1127]

Interesting, I just recently finished reading 1984. In my opinion, I think its more written against totalitarian dictatorships than socialism.
However, I've also had suspicions that it could also be a jab at religion. It's crossed my mind that the Party could represent religion and "Big Brother" is supposed to represent God. I'd be sad if this were the case though because I thought it was a very interesting book.

As for the difference between socialism and communism, we JUST went over this today in government. I recall that it has something to do with socialism being labeled as an "evolutionary" theory, while communism is a "revolutionary" theory. I believe that in communism, the central government has a lot more power.

George Orwell was a socialist.

Socialism and communism, while similar, aren't necessarily compatible. SOme of the most virulent anti-communists are in fact socialists.

[Ashley]

I would agree that power is highly centralised in socialism as well as communism. The subordinates do not decide because they fear that the authority would challenge them. Therefore, when you go to China, you would find that the officials do not do anything unless the authority tells them to.


.

[Leprechaun]

Hmm I tihnk the original question was about ideal Marxism not the forms which exist. In Marxism all means of production would be owned by the people (or the state on their behalf). This does not rule out democracy because surely this system would still allow people to vote for a candidate to control the resources. The problem with communism in practice is that people often don't work for the interests of the state often they are fighting/competing with forein countries in order to gain power however the gaining of international power has nothing to do with socialist economics. If communism was done properly it would work but the truth is that no systems work perfectly where people are involved (not even the equally idealistic capitalist system which hopes that individuals trying to gain individual wealth will benefit society as a whole) in the same vein atheism and communism aren't inseperably linked. Here are some interesting quotes:
Acts 2:44-45
44All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds* to all, as any had need
Acts 4:32
Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.
I'm sure there are probably more.
PS: I amn't a Marxist nor anything similar, I am slightly socialist but nothing more than state healthcare etc.(probably because of my poor upbringing) I don't have any strong preferences for any system (except democracy) as all economic theories or systems have inherent flaws eg capitalism has a poor majority and a wealthy elite ( the sizes of which differ from country to country) in communism there is no incentive to work. These problems are a few of the any which exist in all systems there is no "ideal" economic system and there is none that everyone will agree on.

[Ashley]

I have heard of Christian communism. I don't know why such term could emerge.

On the contrary to your opinion, I would think that the Christians are allowed to profiteer. I know that it is not exact interpretation of some passages like Luke 19:11-27 where the king are to ask the return the servants would have using the minas he has given them. Rather it is usury that is condemned. In Nehemiah 5:5-11, nobles and officials are denounced to have exploited the poor, charging them with excessive interest (usury). Obviously it is the profits that is earned abnormally and in excess of what the people deserve to earn being condemned about. Apparently illicit funds siphoned, bribery, abnormal prices over-charged on consumers duirng difficult times, ... are all dirty money that the Lord dislike. (personal opinion)

In situation during Acts of the Apostle, the poor were deprived of what they deserved and being exploited; usury was a serious problem so the apostles tended to denounce profiteering and preferred sharing among the majority. It was the prioritised thing so the biblical passage sounds more on the side of communism, but personally Christians do not suggest communism otherwise merchants are doomed, which are never indicated in any of the biblical passages. Pleaae point that out if you find them.

Nowaday I trust that capitalist system have caused a lot of problems. Wealthy are minority population which are more powerful and the poor are becoming increasingly poorer. What the global world needs is more socialism and less capitalists' power to strike a balance; I really doubt whether war may break out if the sentiment is too much.

[Daniel]

The notion that socialism is of the devil and unbiblical is, in itself, unbiblical. The blog post linked to is replete of personal attacks that I personally find unChristlike in nature and presentation, in that they go beyond their stating the biblical case and consist of invective. I consider my personal political beliefs to be unclassifiable in nature (I'm very conservative on some issues, and very liberal on others), but I do support the continual existence of a welfare state, given that attempting to wean ourselves from it would have devastating effects and would lead to the most extremely exploitative forms of capitalism (an example being the oligarchies that emerged in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a time when Russians were starving). I almost wonder if these proclamations are meant, to put it bluntly, to encourage well-meaning Christians to dismiss issues relating to poverty and other social programs on election day so they can more easily justify a Republican vote.