Why are some Christians so hateful to the idea of socialism,? But love Laissez faire capitalism?

[dontsnitch]

He is a Muslem.

He is a Christian, that was just a ruse, and a very dedicated one at that.. I also think you need to read between the lines here if you know what I mean...

 

[lukaswithelidof]

He is a Muslem.

Wow. He converted ? Crazy.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Wow. He converted ? Crazy.

I am not sure the guy trolls a lot lol.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I am curious as to why some American right wing Christians are often 'racist' and often very 'fuck government' and fuck anything that can help anyone. To me these people are brainwashed and being misled by greedy capitalists and oligarchs.

Or maybe it's you that's brainwashed.

 

[jamesmiller14]

The corporation bought Christianity.

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

You touch on a basic part of the Christian philosophy of charity here, of which non-Christians seem to be ignorant.

Here's one example, but there are others: "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." That is found in 2 Corinthians chapter nine. Christian giving is intensely personal and is never to be forced. What a man or a woman has is theirs. It belongs to them. The entire notion of Christian generosity and charity is based on the idea of personal property owned by individuals. A such, it is antithetical to the collectivism inherent in socialist policies.

There is no issue with personal property in socialism. Things that are intended for your own personal use and yours by right. Private property on the other hand is not tolerated because it's intended to be used by others for a price which is effectively holding capital for ransom.

No one uses the No True Scotsmen fallacy more than socialists/communists. No one. They might as well rename it the no True Engels fallacy.

If I said isis is Christian and you said no they are Muslims, then I just started screeching no true Scotsman everyone would call my bullshit because definitions matter. Why then do you disregard definitions when it comes to socialism and communism? Why do you conflate nationalization of the means of production with the working class owning the means of production? When we say X is not socialist, it's because the working class does not own the means of production.

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

How is it dictatorial to centralize all economic and political power int he state, while minimizing or eliminating any external authority structures like religion and family? This is a real question?

How about the fact that only one party is ever tolerated? Or that justice itself is considered an anti-revolutionary bourgeois concept?



Lol. No. It isn't the concentration of power into the hands of the people directly, but into the hands of the vanguard of the revolution, ie the Communist Party, to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.

That would be dictatorial, but it would not have anything to do with the working class owning the means of production.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

There is no issue with personal property in socialism. Things that are intended for your own personal use and yours by right. Private property on the other hand is not tolerated because it's intended to be used by others for a price which is effectively holding capital for ransom.

So according to you, there is no issue with personal property in socialism but private property is not tolerated.

If I said isis is Christian and you said no they are Muslims, then I just started screeching no true Scotsman everyone would call my bullshit because definitions matter. Why then do you disregard definitions when it comes to socialism and communism? Why do you conflate nationalization of the means of production with the working class owning the means of production? When we say X is not socialist, it's because the working class does not own the means of production.

I conflate the nationalization of an industry with the working class owning the means of production because in practice there has been no difference between the two.

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

So according to you, there is no issue with personal property in socialism but private property is not tolerated.



I conflate the nationalization of an industry with the working class owning the means of production because in practice there has been no difference between the two.

How are nationalization and worker ownership remotely comparable? State ownership is nothing close to employee ownership.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

How are nationalization and worker ownership remotely comparable? State ownership is nothing close to employee ownership.

The Communist Party is the best representative of the working classes, comrade.

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

The Communist Party is the best representative of the working classes, comrade.

You are free to believe that if you want, but I think the working class can represent themselves.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You are free to believe that if you want, but I think the working class can represent themselves.

What you believe is irrelevant. History shows us that Communists do not believe workers can be represented outside of the Communist Party. They would execute you and any others who aver otherwise.

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

What you believe is irrelevant. History shows us that Communists do not believe workers can be represented outside of the Communist Party. They would execute you and any others who aver otherwise.

Sounds like you are calling isis Christians again to confirm your beliefs.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Sounds like you are calling isis Christians again to confirm your beliefs.

No, I am calling the Communist Party a bunch of communists.

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

No, I am calling the Communist Party a bunch of communists.

So if I call myself the goat of fighters it must be true! What a wonderful world you live in.