Socialism

Discuss topics raised by callers on the radio program
User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Socialism

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:41 pm

Paidon,

The picture gets clearer now. You are a Marxist. You quoted from the World Socialist Movement website. I got on there just now and an article by Karl Marx called "Doubt Everything" is displayed. In that article, Marx said that Socialism must be introduced, first peacefully, but then violently, if necessary.

Once again, Socialism is evil, always has been, always will be. Why would an evil, violent, man, like Karl Marx, advocate Socialism? Because it allows him to carry out his evil schemes of controlling the masses, stealing their money, removing their freedoms, creating envy, greed, and class warfare, all of the things that you accuse capitalism of doing.

Dwight

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Socialism

Post by Paidion » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:40 pm

Oh yes, Dwight. Now you've got my number, haven't you? I'm a Marxist!

Well, you're absolutely wrong. I am not a Marxist and I never have been a Marxist. Or does quoting from the World Socialist Website, that quotes Marx, automatically make me a Marxist?

If you found something true in Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and quoted from it, would that prove you are an atheist? Do you think it is possible that an atheist could be right about some things?

Could those who began the World Socialist Website be right about some things even if some or all of them are Marxists? Could Marx himself have been right about some things?

It is so easy to pigeon-hole everyone, especially those with whom we disagree.

Also, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Karl Marx. Find any article, any at all, that indicates that he "carried out evil schemes of controlling the masses, stealing their money, removing their freedoms, creating envy, greed, and class warfare, all of the things that I accuse capitalism of doing." Marx didn't control anyone. He was not a political leader; he was a philosopher. It is true that Lenin and Stalin did those evil things as a result of the way they interpreted Marx (and Marx himself did think that the workers should rebel against capitalism and establish a classless society). But on what basis, do you call Marx "evil" and "violent"? Because of his political theories? You might want to become more familiar with what he did by looking at this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

There are a number of different groups and political systems that supposedly follow Marx—and disagree with each other.
I do not, in any way, follow Marx's teachings. But I do see the evils of capitalism.

To say as you do, that "Socialism is evil, always has been, always will be," is pretty naïve in my view. Do you have a shred of evidence that democratic socialism is evil?

As one who lives in a non-Communist, non-Marxist, democratic socialist country, I ask you to tell me in what ways my country is more evil that United States. Many U.S. citizens holiday in resorts in Canada to hunt and fish. Has any of the "evil socialists" of Canada ever harmed any of them?

By the way, it might interest you to know that there is one right-wing party in Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada. There is one left-wing party, the New Democratic Party, and one that claims to be "middle-of-the road", the Liberal Party, (though I think it is left, but not as far left as the NDP). I have NEVER voted for a candidate of either the NDP or the Liberals (except once at age 21 when I voted NDP just to be different).

There used to be one party that was even farther to the right than the Conservatives, and in a Canadian election I ran as a candidate for that party. That party tended to have many Christians as members. Later, one of them, whom I think was an evangelist, became leader, and for some odd reason asked people NOT to vote for the party. Still later (I think as a result) the party became defunct. Since then, I have always voted for the Conservative candidate in our riding.

True it was socialist and Baptist minister, Tommy Douglas who brought in Canada's medicare program. It was so well received, that no Conservative government ever attempted to remove it. Read about Tommy Douglas, "Father of Medicare," here:

http://healthcoalition.ca/main/resource ... -medicare/
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Socialism

Post by thrombomodulin » Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:02 am

Paidion wrote:If that were what capitalism is, then capitalism does not exist,...
The two economic systems under discussion are ultimately defined by the answer to the question "who has the right to decide how any given resource is used?" This is the same thing as establishing how property rights ought to be defined and recognized.

I think a deficiency in this discussion has been that none of the participants have offered a comprehensive theory of property rights for their preferred economic system. Steve has described property rights for capitalism as "honestly-acquired resources" without defining the criteria by which one honestly acquires a resource. Paidion has described property rights for socialism as "an ability to make choices" without defining how conflict ought to be resolved between those with incompatible interests (is it always voting?). I would like to offer some ideas about this, from a capitalist point of view, which I hope will address some concerns of Paidion and others favoring socialism.

I found John Locke's book "Second Treatise of Government", Ludwig Von Mises's "Human Action", and several works by Hans Herman Hoppe very helpful in developing an understanding and appreciation of the private property/capitalist system. These above authors suggest that homesteading and voluntary exchange are the valid means by which property ownership is established and exchanged between men.

(1) Homesteading occurs when a person expends his effort to take something from nature, which is not yet owned by anyone else, and modify it to be useful to his needs. It is the idea that the first person to identify a resource as valuable, and utilize it, acquires it as his property. The idea that the first comer to a resource has the right to ownership seems to be intuitively recognized among small children who both wish to use the same resource (e.g. a toy, a playground swing, etc,.), for they recognize the latecomer does wrong if they seize the resource from the one who began to use it first. Hans Herman Hoppe demonstrates that if the latecomers are favored over the first user, then the problem arises that one person establishes partial ownership over another person's body necessarily follows, and thus a universal code of ethics has to be rejected. I find Han's argument to be compelling.

(2) On voluntary exchange Steve is close, but needs to be corrected. He said "a man in a just society will receive, in exchange for the money he lays out, the equivalent value in goods or services. Thus, it is in no sense "at his expense," because there has been an exchange in equivalent value." The problem with this statement is that the values are not equal because value is subjective rather than objective. If men making exchanges really did value the items involved equally, then there is no reason to expect them not the exchange the same goods a second time, which returns things back to initial state of affairs. Rather, participants who are exchanging goods value the items unequally, with both having opposite opinions about which of the items is of greater value. It can be concluded that voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial (a win-win), no one is defrauded. Exchange, in and of itself, produces wealth because it delivers goods into the positions where they are better meeting human needs.

Capitalism views property rights as valid if a man obtained a good through a sequence of voluntary exchanges which originated with a first appropriation through homesteading. One should not say capitalism does not exist, for wherever property rights of the type I described here are recognized, and voluntary exchange occurs among property owners it is there that it exists. This happens countless times every day, and it can be recognized in the scripture (e.g. Abraham buying a cave in Machpelah as burial site for Sarah from Ephron who acquired it by building it himself (homesteading) or buying it from someone who had).
Paidion wrote:When everyone acts in his own self-interests, the many in any society suffers.
It is true that individuals act in their self interest in capitalism. However, this is not a valid criticism any particular economic system because the individual always acts with his self interest by definition (in a praxeological sense, which is the only one the matters).
Paidion wrote:But what is the meaning of "just"? That everyone gets his own individual way at the expense of the multitude? ... That is not justice. People need to work together, to coöperate.
The mutually beneficial nature of exchange (point #2) addresses this objection because whenever a person provides a product on the market, those whom he sells to benefit because they receive something they value more than what they what they give up to pay for it. Thus capitalism fully fits the definition of cooperation, and society can be stated to benefit without qualification because both participants in the exchange improved their state of affairs.
World Socialist Movement wrote:In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs.
In Capitalism the only way to make a profit is to satisfy peoples needs. Consumers do not buy things that they do not wish to have.
Paidion wrote:If it's "every man for himself" then people as a whole suffer.
Where private property is respected the man acting for himself cannot cause others to suffer - the only way for him to make a profit is to provide something that will improve the state of affairs for the person with whom he is trading.
Paidion wrote:I do not betray the principle [of human right to act upon free will]. Freedom of the will is the ability to make choices; it is not the license to do whatever you want.
When one avails himself of resources not obtained by homesteading or through voluntary exchange, it necessarily follows that one person is in some degree procuring benefits by the compulsory labor of others. This is not just because, like slavery, it assumes one person has certain rights over another persons body.
Paidion wrote:What is your basis for those statements? I say it's just the other way around. Capitalism generates monopolies, so that a few large businesses crowd out the small ones, and thus wealth tends to be concentrated in the hand of the selfish few.
It is my understanding that capitalism does not generate monopolies - why do you assert that it does? What is the mechanism that you see causing this to occur in a capitalist system? Is there a particular monopoly that exists today that you are concerned about?
Candlepower wrote:I highly recommend he read The Law by Frederick Bastiat.
I concur with Candlepower and also would like to highly recommend this book.

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Socialism

Post by Candlepower » Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:38 am

thrombomodulin wrote:The two economic systems under discussion are ultimately defined by the answer to the question "who has the right to decide how any given resource is used?" This is the same thing as establishing how property rights ought to be defined and recognized.
I always appreciate your posts, Thrombomodulin. In terms of economic analysis, you are a brain surgeon and a rocket scientist!
Paidion wrote:Do you think it is possible that an atheist could be right about some things?
Of course it's possible. Even a blind hog sometimes unearths an acorn, as they say. But your quote from a Marxist source was full of lies, not truth. You promoted Marxist lies--Marxist propaganda! It's very disappointing that you don't see, or can't see, that they are lies. Marx was a horrible man. I actually question whether he was ever right about anything. The quote you referred to certainly doesn't prove that he was ever right.

Is it any wonder that Dwight called you a Marxist? Perhaps he was thinking, "If it quacks like a duck...etc." I doubt you're a card-carrying Marxist, but I do think Marxists love dupes who zealously carry their baggage for them. That the dupes are Christians especially gratifies them.
Paidion wrote: Or does quoting from the World Socialist Website, that quotes Marx, automatically make me a Marxist?
Not automatically. But because you quoted the Marxist lies as if they were true, that does raise a red flag.
Paidion wrote:...he (Marx) was a philosopher
Well isn't that a kind way of describing a man who grossly neglected his wife and children because he was so engrossed in "brilliant" thinking. Instead of working to provide them with a decent home and sufficient food, he spent his adulthood developing evil schemes--I mean philosophizing, as you call it. Several of this creep's poor offspring died in childhood, some say because of poor health resulting from the lack of food. Clearly, Marx didn't live by his own credo, "...to each according to his needs," unless he thought his need to vent his hateful envy was greater than his kids' need to eat food.
Paidion wrote:But on what basis, do you call Marx "evil" and "violent"? Because of his political theories? You might want to become more familiar with what he did
Have you not read Marx's Communist Manifesto? Do you not think it provides a basis for calling him evil? It bothers me that you seem to sympathize with and apologize for Marx, as if he was simply a misunderstood thinker whose theories were hijacked and misapplied by Lenin and Stalin. It is you, Paidion, who should become more familiar with, and opposed to, what Marx did.
Paidion wrote:As one who lives in a non-Communist, non-Marxist, democratic socialist country, I ask you to tell me in what ways my country is more evil that United States.
Two remarks:

1. Are you not aware that socialism is intrinsic to Communism and Marxism? To say that Canada is a socialist country but not a Marxist one is absurd. You cannot divide the two. Socialism is Marxism; Marxism is Socialism. That the economies of Canada and the US are not completely socialized does not really make a difference. If Marx, Lenin and Stalin were alive, they would be delighted to see how much of Marx's "philosophy" the US and Canada have adopted. To the extent that a country's economic system is socialistic, to that degree it is Marxist/Communist.

2. You keep making this a spitting contest between Canada and US. Why?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Socialism

Post by steve » Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:30 am

Paidion,

I quoted an online, authoritative definition of Capitalism, and said that it describes a scriptural (not a man-made) concept, and a natural means of commerce between men. You, on the other hand, quote a Marxist "definition" of Capitalism, in order to argue that Capitalism is unscriptural. How could you miss the fact that I am not defending Marxist definitions of Capitalism, but the actual definition? I provided, in situ, the correct definition of the word, and invited you to critique it—which you (characteristically) failed to do.

If I were to assert: "Faith in God is what the Bible advocates" and, in order to avoid confusion, I then provide the dictionary definition of the word, would you be prepared to take issue by quoting Richard Dawkins' absurd definition of faith—i.e., that it means an irrational belief in something for which there is no evidence? Would you then argue that my assertion was incorrect because faith, by Dawkins' definition (which none of us has advocated), is not scriptural? To what affect? Why not discuss the real definition? Is it because it would require to to concede my point?

I expect readers of intelligence to recognize that, when I defend a concept—and even include the definition of the concept—I am defending the concept according to its proper definition—not according to a caricatured definition put forward by its enemies.

You and Jeremiah found my statements "laughable" and "ludicrous." When I asked which part of the definition you found to be unscriptural, all I heard were crickets.
If that were what capitalism is, then capitalism does not exist, since there is no country in the world in which there in no government interference in the lives of people.
I have already pointed out to you the irrelevance of a statement like this to our discussion. I am not discussing which countries may or may not be practicing pure capitalism. I am defending the concept itself as the scriptural teaching.

Your statement would be equivalent to saying, "Defining Christianity as 'following the teachings and example of Christ' is absurd, because, if that were the correct definition, then Christianity isn't practiced anywhere on earth!" Are you unable to see the non-sequitur involved in such a statement?

Your arguments consistently lapse into a declaration that the USA is not better than is Canada. I have not contradicted this, for the simple reason that the point is irrelevant to the topic we are discussing. Your nationalism apparently makes you defensive to the point of inability to recognize even what the topic is that we are discussing, if you feel your country is being critiqued. I never assess points of doctrine or ethics based upon whether my domicile nation (the USA; my citizenship and loyalties are elsewhere) comes out looking better or worse as a result of the analysis.

Timios
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:57 pm

Re: Socialism

Post by Timios » Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:29 am

So why is this argument taking place? If some democratic countries are Socialist and other democratic countries are Capitalist, and there is both individual freedom as well as governmental oppression in both?

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Socialism

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:05 pm

Timios,

The question under discussion is whether socialist programs are inherently and always an act of governmental oppression. Related to this Paidion raised the concern the capitalism results in oppression by those with wealth against those without it.

Pete

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Socialism

Post by steve » Wed Jul 27, 2016 1:59 pm

Hi Timios,

You wrote:
So why is this argument taking place? If some democratic countries are Socialist and other democratic countries are Capitalist, and there is both individual freedom as well as governmental oppression in both?
I'm pretty sure that this argument is taking place because the participants have an interest in discerning the mind of God on a point of Christian morality. If you find no reason for the debate, why are you reading it?

The fact that no purely free societies exist has no bearing on the value of this discussion. We are not discussing what kind of societies exist, but what kind ought to exist. Most of us live in countries that pay lip service to the democratic process, meaning that public (including the Christians') opinion plays a role in dictating what kind of society we shall leave to future generations. People (including Christians) who have misguided opinions will promote immoral policies, and our children will suffer for our errors.

We are discussing Christian morality. If we were to observe that all modern evangelical churches have divorced people in them, would you view this fact to be reason enough to put away all discussions among us of the morality or immorality of divorce?

Timios
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:57 pm

Re: Socialism

Post by Timios » Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:48 pm

This is a strange forum, indeed. You can't ask a question without receiving a slap in the face.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Socialism

Post by Paidion » Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:56 pm

Don't worry about that, Timios. Get used to it. You've got to be thick-skinned around here.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Radio Program Topics”