Does Socialism align with Scripture?

[Starlight]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they stole the money from the poor. They are making wealth, not stealing it. Creating new products that people buy, employing people to help create them.

I find it difficult to assess how true that is. Certainly modern economics is often taught as if the world is non-zero-sum, and in some people's idealized view capitalism is all about creating new wealth. But whether that assumption is actually valid is difficult to say. The vast majority of economic transactions are zero-sum. So I'm not sure whether approximating the current system as zero-sum or non-zero-sum is more helpful/accurate.

However, it's worth noting that in the ancient world they viewed economics as zero-sum. So from the point of view of reading the bible in context, you've got to understand that the writers/audience of the biblical stories held the exact opposite view to the one you describe. They absolutely thought that every single dollar a rich person had was exactly one less dollar a poor person had, and that, inherently, you couldn't get rich except by exploiting others. That's a pretty pervasive background assumption throughout the gospels and throughout everything Jesus says about wealth and poverty.

There's a possible case to be made that such an assumption was valid in biblical times in a way it isn't today, due to changes in technology, and economic system. However, overall I tend to lean toward the view that viewing the economy as zero-sum is the most helpful model even today.

All socialism wants to do is tear down those that have more. They want shared misery. That is envy.

You're delusional.

Oh so stealing from the rich to give to someone ELSE is OK?

That's kinda what Robin Hood was famous for. He was pretty much the hero of that story.

Also, organising the economy in a different way isn't 'stealing', nor is government taxation.


I would also note that not all types of socialism involve transfers of money. The idea of cooperative businesses, common among democratic socialists, has nothing particularly to do with taking anyone's money and giving it to anyone else. If what you're objecting to is "government taxation and welfare schemes" then say that, but don't confuse it with "socialism" because they're not the same thing.

[Starlight]

I and most of the people I know are in the lower to lower-middle income range. We strongly oppose Socialism because we view it to be theft from those who have achieved financial success. We generally view "social justice" to be the opposite of "actual" justice.

You're making it pretty easy for me to believe that the people you know are pretty much wrong about everything.

Sharing isn't socialism. Socialism is a form of government.

There are lots of different types of socialism. Only some of them are forms of government. Others have nothing at all to do with government and are about the economy or about social systems. You keep seeming to want to have socialism be one single thing which you seem to identify with some sort or ill-defined combination of the USSR and social welfare programs... which is pretty weird.

You also seem stuck on the issue of whether voluntary communes such as described in Acts 2 are a form of socialism or not. Sparko, they absolutely are. They have been viewed as prototypical examples of socialism since before Marx's time.

Sharing isn't socialism. They were a family in Christ and sharing is what families do.

Families are a common example of a socialist system. Goods aren't auctioned within the family, or traded among family members for money. Instead the family has a shared pool of wealth, and each person contributes according to their abilities and receives according to their needs. The children are not expected to contribute as much as the adults, but they are provided for.

The early Christians saw the church as being an extended family and having that same socialist structure where they shared what they had.

How much of your stuff did you sell off and give away, in your Christian days?

Are you aware that how good I personally was or wasn't at obeying the words of Jesus doesn't change those words?

Without question socialism is compatible with scripture. A more interesting question would be whether capitalism is compatible with scripture, and/or to what extent socialism is demanded by scripture as opposed to merely compatible with it.

[NorrinRadd]

You're making it pretty easy for me to believe that the people you know are pretty much wrong about everything. ...

From your POV, I would suspect that's the case. I find this reassuring.

[Sparko]

You seem to think that it's an either or proposition. Supporting government assistance doesn't mean you can't do your own thing as well.

When government taxes you into poverty it makes it hard to help others.

[Sparko]

I find it difficult to assess how true that is. Certainly modern economics is often taught as if the world is non-zero-sum, and in some people's idealized view capitalism is all about creating new wealth. But whether that assumption is actually valid is difficult to say. The vast majority of economic transactions are zero-sum. So I'm not sure whether approximating the current system as zero-sum or non-zero-sum is more helpful/accurate.

However, it's worth noting that in the ancient world they viewed economics as zero-sum. So from the point of view of reading the bible in context, you've got to understand that the writers/audience of the biblical stories held the exact opposite view to the one you describe. They absolutely thought that every single dollar a rich person had was exactly one less dollar a poor person had, and that, inherently, you couldn't get rich except by exploiting others. That's a pretty pervasive background assumption throughout the gospels and throughout everything Jesus says about wealth and poverty.

wow. would you like to support that assertion with scripture? What about Abraham who was one of the richest people in the bible, who did he exploit to get rich? Who did he steal from? Sure the bible talks about greed and some people who take advantage of others, but as a lesson on what NOT to do, not as an example of how economics is supposed to work.

There's a possible case to be made that such an assumption was valid in biblical times in a way it isn't today, due to changes in technology, and economic system. However, overall I tend to lean toward the view that viewing the economy as zero-sum is the most helpful model even today.

But it isn't.

You're delusional.

No, you are. You keep longing for some utopian government where everyone lives happily ever after. Well socialism isn't it. That has been proven over and over. Human nature sees to that. Socialism just wants what others have. But, like they say, you soon run out of other people's money, and then everyone is miserable and poor.

That's kinda what Robin Hood was famous for. He was pretty much the hero of that story.

No, he stole from the Government who was overtaxing the people and gave them their money back. He was like Trump. Tax Cuts for everyone! He was anti-government.

Also, organising the economy in a different way isn't 'stealing', nor is government taxation.

When you decide to take away money from people who earned it and give it to someone else, that is stealing. If I came to your house and said you have too much, and robbed you to give to Mountain Man who I think deserves more, I am a thief.

I would also note that not all types of socialism involve transfers of money. The idea of cooperative businesses, common among democratic socialists, has nothing particularly to do with taking anyone's money and giving it to anyone else. If what you're objecting to is "government taxation and welfare schemes" then say that, but don't confuse it with "socialism" because they're not the same thing.

You claim that many business structure we have in Capitalism is already socialist so why not work within the system that we already have instead of trying to change the entire government into socialism? Wages are a method of sharing profits, as is stock ownership and co-ops. If you don't like the disparity between the guys at the top and the ones at the bottom, work to fix that instead of trying to use Government to forceably take over companies and redistribute wealth.

[JimL]

Who taught you mathematics, JimL; if the government takes away a portion of my earnings(and yes i am taxed, even though I'm not part of the 1%) that is money I don't' have to give to organizations who do a better job of taking care of the needs of others.

Which organizations take care of the medical needs of the poor and ill? Which organizations provide for free child care and education for the children of working mothers? Which organizations provide for public education for all? There are many things that the government provides via taxes that charitable organizations don't and could never provide for.

[JimL]

When government taxes you into poverty it makes it hard to help others.

The government doesn't tax you into poverty, it taxes you, in part, to help those that are impoverished, which, if you are impoverished, would be a help to you.

[lilpixieofterror]

Which organizations take care of the medical needs of the poor and ill?

Which organizations provide for free child care and education for the children of working mothers?

Which organizations provide for public education for all?

Churches used to provide education, to the local population, but just look at school performance metrics where our public schools are failing to provide a solid education.

There are many things that the government provides via taxes that charitable organizations don't and could never provide for.

You must be ignorant of history because they did.

[JimL]

St Jude Hospital recieves government grants and donations are tax deductible, silly girl. And btw, the CEO of St Judes makes 7 million a year.


For those who can afford it, and again, charitable organizations can't do it all.

Churches used to provide education, to the local population, but just look at school performance metrics where our public schools are failing to provide a solid education.

Sunday school, 4 hours a week, for specially selected children. Seriously, Lilpix? Even at that they couldn't afford to keep it going.

You must be ignorant of history because they did.

As usual you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Cow Poke]

Read with the Foghorn Leghorn intonations of ol' Fritz Hollings.

EGGzackly!!!! Glad somebody caught that!

[Cow Poke]

You seem to think that it's an either or proposition.

Not at all - as I've pointed out before, I bet there were years where I paid more in taxes than you made in a year!

Supporting government assistance doesn't mean you can't do your own thing as well.

You realize there's already a Captain Obvious, yes?

[Cow Poke]

One point of disagreement with the tenor of some of the comments earlier: I don't think the biblical injunctions about people taking personal responsiblity to help neighbors means that governments can't help in this role, any more than Psalm 82:3 teaching us to defend the helpless on a personal level means that police forces shouldn't exist.

Correct - there are some things government can do that we, individually (or even collectively as churches, organizations), cannot do. I just wish they could do them as effectively and efficiently as we do the things we do.

[lilpixieofterror]

St Jude Hospital recieves government grants and donations are tax deductible, silly girl. And btw, the CEO of St Judes makes 7 million a year.

For those who can afford it, and again, charitable organizations can't do it all.

Sunday school, 4 hours a week, for specially selected children. Seriously, Lilpix? Even at that they couldn't afford to keep it going.

As usual you have no clue what you're talking about.

[RumTumTugger]

The government doesn't tax you into poverty, it taxes you, in part, to help those that are impoverished, which, if you are impoverished, would be a help to you.

If everyone is poor who will you get the money from?

[KingsGambit]

Correct - there are some things government can do that we, individually (or even collectively as churches, organizations), cannot do. I just wish they could do them as effectively and efficiently as we do the things we do.

I think in a perfect world the government should be there as a final emergency set of brakes if everything else fails to keep you from starving to death.