Corporation Socialism

[promethean75]

Grass roots mom 'n pops christian value systems are neither here nor there and wouldn't change anything about the course the world is on. Your kids are gonna experience the Hegelian big crunch when the material relations of the world get so irrational and fucked up there'll be no way to prevent the techno-capitalistic overhaul of world politics/economy and a new society along the lines of 1984 will emerge under the dictatorial power of politician-tycoon combos like Trump and Musk.

And all you had to do to prevent this dystopian nightmare from happening was get Marx right.

However being that we are an absurd species I think it's appropriate that we fuck it all up. Has a nice ring to it.

[Belinda]

If "everywhere there's always an elite class," as you say, then there's no such thing as a Socialist society. There's no "triumph of the proletariat," or Communist utopia, either.
You should read what Christ said about that more carefully. You've actually said the opposite of what He said. He said it was easier for "a camel to go through the eye of a needle" than for that to be the case -- not impossible, perhaps, but very, very challenging indeed.

And yet, you managed to misunderstand it completely, it seems. So maybe I'm not the worst expositor of it in this conversation after all.

Being rich when others are starving, lacking shelter, and in need of hospitals is indeed a bar to entering the Kingdom of God.

The passage reads thus:

[

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”]

Obviously, it is more difficult for anyone to get into the kingdom of God than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, "but with God all things are possible."

I see this passage misinterpreted over and over.

I don't know how B. got it wrong. It's pretty clear: being rich is not a condition of entrance to the Kingdom of God, nor of being kept out of it; but it does make things very difficult. And that makes perfect sense, in view of the circumstances, which are of the famous "Rich Young Ruler" having Christ's invitation to follow Him, but not being willing to accept it, due to his riches...see Mark 10:20-22.

Being rich when others are starving, lacking shelter, and in need of hospitals is indeed a bar to entering the Kingdom of God.

[Immanuel Can]

Being rich when others are starving, lacking shelter, and in need of hospitals is indeed a bar to entering the Kingdom of God.

The passage reads thus:

[

Obviously, it is more difficult for anyone to get into the kingdom of God than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, "but with God all things are possible."

I see this passage misinterpreted over and over.

I don't know how B. got it wrong. It's pretty clear: being rich is not a condition of entrance to the Kingdom of God, nor of being kept out of it; but it does make things very difficult. And that makes perfect sense, in view of the circumstances, which are of the famous "Rich Young Ruler" having Christ's invitation to follow Him, but not being willing to accept it, due to his riches...see Mark 10:20-22.

Being rich when others are starving, lacking shelter, and in need of hospitals is indeed a bar to entering the Kingdom of God.

That's not what Jesus Christ said. That's "The Gospel of Belinda." What Jesus Christ said was that such things were simply wrong. He did not bar the Kingdom of God based on them. Good deeds aren't how one gets there in the first place.

[promethean75]

It's so painfully obvious that J was a proto-anarcho-socialist that, had he not gone fruitloops and the bible never emerged to form this ridiculous messiah narrative that surrounds him, you'd have thought of him as just another peasant political agitator executed by the Roman upper class.

Now why is your homeboy Muhammad so much cooler than J? Because he was a warlord badass and he wasn't totally fruitloops like J was. Maybe he had too much to drink out there and thought Gabriel came down to chill with him... or maybe he made it all up to secure his authority in Islam. Either way, he's much more level headed than J was. I mean you never claim to be the son of God. You just don't do that, especially around philosophers, wisemen, mathematicians or sages.

[Belinda]

I don't know how B. got it wrong. It's pretty clear: being rich is not a condition of entrance to the Kingdom of God, nor of being kept out of it; but it does make things very difficult. And that makes perfect sense, in view of the circumstances, which are of the famous "Rich Young Ruler" having Christ's invitation to follow Him, but not being willing to accept it, due to his riches...see Mark 10:20-22.

Being rich when others are starving, lacking shelter, and in need of hospitals is indeed a bar to entering the Kingdom of God.

That's not what Jesus Christ said. That's "The Gospel of Belinda." What Jesus Christ said was that such things were simply wrong. He did not bar the Kingdom of God based on them. Good deeds aren't how one gets there in the first place.

Maybe. But first the rich man would have to repent before God could forgave past errors.

[Belinda]

I don't know how B. got it wrong. It's pretty clear: being rich is not a condition of entrance to the Kingdom of God, nor of being kept out of it; but it does make things very difficult. And that makes perfect sense, in view of the circumstances, which are of the famous "Rich Young Ruler" having Christ's invitation to follow Him, but not being willing to accept it, due to his riches...see Mark 10:20-22.

Being rich when others are starving, lacking shelter, and in need of hospitals is indeed a bar to entering the Kingdom of God.

That's not what Jesus Christ said. That's "The Gospel of Belinda." What Jesus Christ said was that such things were simply wrong. He did not bar the Kingdom of God based on them. Good deeds aren't how one gets there in the first place.

Maybe. But first the rich man would have to repent before God could forgave past errors.

[Impenitent]

...
So again, what we need is not Socialism, which is just an institutional ideology of the State, but rather a lively and active moral reform of the people, so that our arrangements and institutions can be genuinely compassionate, flexible, sensitive, efficient and sustainable. And we'll never get that from a State arrangment.

after all, when we have morally reformed the population, who needs government to tell the people how to act?

-Imp

[promethean75]

"Maybe. But first the rich man would have to repent before God could forgave past errors."

You can say that again, B.

[Immanuel Can]

Being rich when others are starving, lacking shelter, and in need of hospitals is indeed a bar to entering the Kingdom of God.

That's not what Jesus Christ said. That's "The Gospel of Belinda." What Jesus Christ said was that such things were simply wrong. He did not bar the Kingdom of God based on them. Good deeds aren't how one gets there in the first place.

Maybe. But first the rich man would have to repent before God could forgave past errors.

That is true. But he wouldn't be evil just for being a rich man. Several of Jesus' followers, like Zaccheus, Johanna, and Joseph of Arimathea were well-to-do, and they were not commanded to divest themselves of their income. In fact, as the Bible says of Christ, "...he was with a rich man in His death..." (Is. 53:9) So God has no particular antipathy to people who have earned wealth fairly and manage it generously.

The problem with the rich young ruler had not been his riches, but rather his love of riches, which had transcended his commitment to God.

It's like one of the most commonly misquoted verses in the whole Bible, which people repeat as "Money is the root of all evil," but which actually says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Tim. 6:10) Check it out.

So how would a rich man "repent"? Not by joining some Socialist plan, but by becoming charitable and responsible in his attitude to wealth.

[Immanuel Can]

...
So again, what we need is not Socialism, which is just an institutional ideology of the State, but rather a lively and active moral reform of the people, so that our arrangements and institutions can be genuinely compassionate, flexible, sensitive, efficient and sustainable. And we'll never get that from a State arrangment.

after all, when we have morally reformed the population, who needs government to tell the people how to act?

-Imp

Word, homey.

[Will Bouwman]

...
So again, what we need is not Socialism, which is just an institutional ideology of the State, but rather a lively and active moral reform of the people, so that our arrangements and institutions can be genuinely compassionate, flexible, sensitive, efficient and sustainable. And we'll never get that from a State arrangment.

after all, when we have morally reformed the population, who needs government to tell the people how to act?

-Imp

Don't worry Imp, it ain't gonna happen. If, as Mr Can believes, someone who had a face to face with Jesus Christ couldn't be persuaded to follow him*, there is fuck all chance that today's oligarchs will be persuaded.

*...the famous "Rich Young Ruler" having Christ's invitation to follow Him, but not being willing to accept it, due to his riches...see Mark 10:20-22.

[Immanuel Can]

It's so painfully obvious that J was a proto-anarcho-socialist...

"Painfully obvious" to somebody absolutely desperate to ally Socialism with virtue. Not at all obvious to a person who can read text.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't worry Imp, it ain't gonna happen. If, as Mr Can believes, someone who had a face to face with Jesus Christ couldn't be persuaded to follow him*, there is fuck all chance that today's oligarchs will be persuaded.

And the Socialist response is to kill them all and steal their wealth? That's how it's worked out historically.

Nowaday, though, it's the Socialists who are helping out the oligarchs.

[promethean75]

"And the Socialist response is to kill them all and steal their wealth?"

What else are you gonna do? The sonsabitches lock you out of the factory and then arrest you for being vagrant. You can't just take a plot of land because Nicholas and his boys own it. You're fucked and forced back into labor. The only way to get out of this pickle is to go trudging across the tundra, mile after mile. Trudging across the tundra... right down to the parish of St. Alfonzo

... and who's gonna do that?

[Immanuel Can]

"And the Socialist response is to kill them all and steal their wealth?"
What else are you gonna do?

Wow. Well, there it is: the homicidal instinct of Socialists. I didn't really expect to see it so overtly admitted.

"What else you're going to do" is focus on the only thing that works: the moral improvement of the human race through direction by higher principles. When power-moves are substituted for deep, personal change, then people just get killed. You can't change human nature by changing political arrangements; all you're going to end up doing is rationalizing murder and theft.

And if you're sincere, and you actually think murder is the way to "the good society," then maybe you need some help first.

But now, given that Socialism is the ally of the oligarchs, the elitists, the globalists, and so forth, how are you going to create equality by adding the the elites the power to kill people?