Corporation Socialism

[Gary Childress]

"Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-26 New King James Version (NKJV)

So, it would seem by "hard" Jesus means "impossible".

To be fair, it does appear that Jesus maybe used the term "hard" and did not mean "impossible". (Or maybe "unbelievably hard" would be the right words.)

Well, unless JC was able to explain how it was not impossible at all for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for all practical purposes it was impossible. Or didn't anyone feel it was necessary to point that out to him? Just produce another miracle? Or, perhaps, make the eye of a needle a...metaphor?

Maybe the eye of a needle was a metaphor? Perhaps Jesus meant that it is (for all intents and purposes) impossible for a rich man to get into heaven but not as impossible for a man who used to be rich but gave all his wealth to the needy to get into heaven. Maybe the same man who was once rich could get into heaven, he just couldn't keep his status as a "rich" man?

However, IC seems to tell us that there were members of Jesus' following who were rich but not commanded to give up their wealth in order to follow him. So not sure how that plays out. Maybe they were more generous with their wealth or used it toward benevolent purposes?

[Belinda]

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.

That's unclear. The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) suggests Belinda's position.

You'll have to explain how you get that. It's not at all obvious that you're talking about the wealthy there.

It looks, rather, like what is being referred to is two groups of people: one who thinks they're good enough for God (the goats), and another that can't imagine they're good enough to be in relationship to God (the sheep). And only that makes sense of what they say. Wealth, or anything about social status is totally absent from that parable.

That is true. Each parable and each Biblical story has a theme of its own.
The story I referred to was important to St John (Wedding at Cana) as it tells how Jesus persuaded the wedding guests that the spirit of the marriage was more important than the precisely conducted wedding ritual.
The teaching of Jesus was ever so; that intentions and spirit of charity matters more than custom.
Remember that some Jews were "whited sepulchres" who pretended to be good Jews simply by appearing to be so but who were in fact cooperating with the Roman establishment in Palestine.

A modern instance of a whited sepulchre is Trump posing with a Bible in front of a Christian cathedral. That blasphemy was condemned by Bishop Mariann Budde, who has emerged as new prophet for our time.

[Belinda]

Institutionalising accepted behaviour is always what men do in all cultures and societies.

Actually, no...they don't have to institutionalize things. They can just do them for moral reasons. Once they institutionalize them, they die. The only thing that can keep them alive is the lively commitment of the people within them to do the right thing.

All institutions including religions have their bads. Despite its infamous evils , Christianity has been the medium for the message of Jesus though the centuries.

[Immanuel Can]

That's unclear. The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) suggests Belinda's position.

You'll have to explain how you get that. It's not at all obvious that you're talking about the wealthy there.

It looks, rather, like what is being referred to is two groups of people: one who thinks they're good enough for God (the goats), and another that can't imagine they're good enough to be in relationship to God (the sheep). And only that makes sense of what they say. Wealth, or anything about social status is totally absent from that parable.

The story I referred to was important to St John (Wedding at Cana) as it tells how Jesus persuaded the wedding guests that the spirit of the marriage was more important than the precisely conducted wedding ritual.

Yes, I know that's what you were saying. I just can't make any sense of it. The text does not support that reading at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Institutionalising accepted behaviour is always what men do in all cultures and societies.

Actually, no...they don't have to institutionalize things. They can just do them for moral reasons. Once they institutionalize them, they die. The only thing that can keep them alive is the lively commitment of the people within them to do the right thing.

All institutions including religions have their bads.

Well, yes. But some have much worse "bads" than others. And Socialism's "bads" have historically proven to be the very worst of all -- if we count deaths. 140 million in the last century. Nothing can compete with that number. Nothing's even close.

But you're not wrong about institutional religions. That's why one should never join one. Following Christ is a personal, not institutional activity. It's human beings who love institutions -- God doesn't. In any case, in preference to an institutional religion, why should one join an Atheistic institutional religion like Socialism, either? (And please, do ask me why I call Socialism a "religion," and I'll give you all the reasons you need.)

[Will Bouwman]

I understand the term "Socialist." I understand the term "democrat." But put together, they make no sense.

Social democracy is common enough in western Europe. There are many variations, which you would expect in a democracy since no two people's interests are identical. The common theme is that some people, like yours truly, think that things like health care, education, economic policy, law, prisons, elements of infrastructure and transport should not be left to the largesse of private individuals. Given that even Jesus couldn't persuade the young rich man to follow him, I think any hope that people will suddenly behave as any particular stripe of Christianity is optimistic.

Socialism is, by its very nature, antidemocratic.

Not if people vote for it.

It's collectivist, instead.

So why are democracy and collectivism mutually exclusive?

[Immanuel Can]

I understand the term "Socialist." I understand the term "democrat." But put together, they make no sense.

Social democracy is common enough in western Europe.

The words "social democracy" are common in western Europe. It's no more a reality there than anywhere else however. You can't have a society that is both Socialist (i.e. collectivist) and democratic. Socialism is, by its very nature, anti-democratic.

Given that even Jesus couldn't persuade the young rich man to follow him, I think any hope that people will suddenly behave as any particular stripe of Christianity is optimistic.

That's just one individual. Perhaps you forget that when Jesus said those words, there were already the 12 disciples, plus a host of lesser-known followers, behind Him. At one point in his ministry, in fact, the Pharisees worried that the entire nation would end up being His disciples. It was only the rich young ruler who had the problem; even other rich men, like Zaccheus or Joseph of Arimathea did not have a similar problem.

But I agree with you, and with Jesus Christ, that some rich people do have that problem: that they love their riches more than truth, more than rightness, more than decency and more than life itself. Jesus said, "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?" Good question. But that's their problem: you can't eliminate those people. They'll always be around.

So why are democracy and collectivism mutually exclusive?

Because collectivism prioritizes the will of a collective over the freedom of individuals. That's definitional. And this creates a problem for Socialism: some people don't want to be Socialists. As you say, people are different: some want different things. Not all want to be scooped up into some collectivist project. They don't want to be taxed to death, they don't want to lose their private property, and maybe they even are happy to subsidize the genuinely needy, but don't want to become responsible for subsidizing the indolent and corrupt. They have their own reasons, but they don't want to submit to somebody else's imposed collective project.

But because Socialism is collectivist, it cannot allow those individuals to have their choice not to be Socialist -- that would ruin their Socialism, their collectivism because their ideology depends on everybody being "in." So, lacking total democratic consensus, they end up having to use force, instead of democratic means. And that means violence of various types. That's how it's always gone in history, and how it would go again, in any new Socialist state.

[Belinda]

You'll have to explain how you get that. It's not at all obvious that you're talking about the wealthy there.

It looks, rather, like what is being referred to is two groups of people: one who thinks they're good enough for God (the goats), and another that can't imagine they're good enough to be in relationship to God (the sheep). And only that makes sense of what they say. Wealth, or anything about social status is totally absent from that parable.

The story I referred to was important to St John (Wedding at Cana) as it tells how Jesus persuaded the wedding guests that the spirit of the marriage was more important than the precisely conducted wedding ritual.

Yes, I know that's what you were saying. I just can't make any sense of it. The text does not support that reading at all.

That's because you lack the anthropological view of Biblical stories. You read these Bible stories as if Palestine at the time of Jesus were some strange land where the people are not real human beings but exist only to flesh out magical narrative.

[Gary Childress]

Because collectivism prioritizes the will of a collective over the freedom of individuals. That's definitional. And this creates a problem for Socialism: some people don't want to be Socialists. As you say, people are different: some want different things. Not all want to be scooped up into some collectivist project. They don't want to be taxed to death, they don't want to lose their private property, and maybe they even are happy to subsidize the genuinely needy, but don't want to become responsible for subsidizing the indolent and corrupt. They have their own reasons, but they don't want to submit to somebody else's imposed collective project.

But because Socialism is collectivist, it cannot allow those individuals to have their choice not to be Socialist -- that would ruin their Socialism, their collectivism because their ideology depends on everybody being "in." So, lacking total democratic consensus, they end up having to use force, instead of democratic means. And that means violence of various types. That's how it's always gone in history, and how it would go again, in any new Socialist state.

Are all forms of government restraint on a person's freedom "undemocratic"? Is social contract theory a recipe for tyranny? Isn't social contract theory basically an attempt to limit people's freedom to do certain things, like steal from their neighbors or punch their neighbor in the nose if they don't like them. Aren't the establishment of property rights a kind of restriction on freedom?

[Belinda]

I understand the term "Socialist." I understand the term "democrat." But put together, they make no sense.

Social democracy is common enough in western Europe.

The words "social democracy" are common in western Europe. It's no more a reality there than anywhere else however. You can't have a society that is both Socialist (i.e. collectivist) and democratic. Socialism is, by its very nature, anti-democratic.

Given that even Jesus couldn't persuade the young rich man to follow him, I think any hope that people will suddenly behave as any particular stripe of Christianity is optimistic.

That's just one individual. Perhaps you forget that when Jesus said those words, there were already the 12 disciples, plus a host of lesser-known followers, behind Him. At one point in his ministry, in fact, the Pharisees worried that the entire nation would end up being His disciples. It was only the rich young ruler who had the problem; even other rich men, like Zaccheus or Joseph of Arimathea did not have a similar problem.

But I agree with you, and with Jesus Christ, that some rich people do have that problem: that they love their riches more than truth, more than rightness, more than decency and more than life itself. Jesus said, "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?" Good question. But that's their problem: you can't eliminate those people. They'll always be around.

So why are democracy and collectivism mutually exclusive?

Because collectivism prioritizes the will of a collective over the freedom of individuals. That's definitional. And this creates a problem for Socialism: some people don't want to be Socialists. As you say, people are different: some want different things. Not all want to be scooped up into some collectivist project. They don't want to be taxed to death, they don't want to lose their private property, and maybe they even are happy to subsidize the genuinely needy, but don't want to become responsible for subsidizing the indolent and corrupt. They have their own reasons, but they don't want to submit to somebody else's imposed collective project.

But because Socialism is collectivist, it cannot allow those individuals to have their choice not to be Socialist -- that would ruin their Socialism, their collectivism because their ideology depends on everybody being "in." So, lacking total democratic consensus, they end up having to use force, instead of democratic means. And that means violence of various types. That's how it's always gone in history, and how it would go again, in any new Socialist state.

Rights of the collective and of the individuals is not black and white but varies according to the number of people. The more people there are the more the collective is needed to govern them, and the less that individual interests can be catered for.

[Immanuel Can]

The story I referred to was important to St John (Wedding at Cana) as it tells how Jesus persuaded the wedding guests that the spirit of the marriage was more important than the precisely conducted wedding ritual.

Yes, I know that's what you were saying. I just can't make any sense of it. The text does not support that reading at all.

That's because you lack the anthropological view of Biblical stories.

No, it's because I can read.

[Immanuel Can]

Because collectivism prioritizes the will of a collective over the freedom of individuals. That's definitional. And this creates a problem for Socialism: some people don't want to be Socialists. As you say, people are different: some want different things. Not all want to be scooped up into some collectivist project. They don't want to be taxed to death, they don't want to lose their private property, and maybe they even are happy to subsidize the genuinely needy, but don't want to become responsible for subsidizing the indolent and corrupt. They have their own reasons, but they don't want to submit to somebody else's imposed collective project.

But because Socialism is collectivist, it cannot allow those individuals to have their choice not to be Socialist -- that would ruin their Socialism, their collectivism because their ideology depends on everybody being "in." So, lacking total democratic consensus, they end up having to use force, instead of democratic means. And that means violence of various types. That's how it's always gone in history, and how it would go again, in any new Socialist state.

Are all forms of government restraint on a person's freedom "undemocratic"?

That depends. What amount of civic participation do you regard as definitive of "democratic"?

Is social contract theory a recipe for tyranny?

Social contract theory is merely an heuristic device. It's not a description of a thing that has ever existed in reality. There was no "social contract" agreed upon by anybody. It was only proposed as a kind of "way of thinking about it," not as a historical truth.

Aren't the establishment of property rights a kind of restriction on freedom?

Not at all...unless you mean the "freedom" to steal somebody else's legitimate property.

[Immanuel Can]

Rights of the collective and of the individuals is not black and white but varies according to the number of people.

No, that's definitely wrong. When the two come into conflict, which they often do, one has to choose: will one stand for the rights of the individual, or the demands of the collective?

However, the collective isn't a person. It's a concept, an abstraction, instead. And a collective has no "rights." Only a person can be a bearer of rights.

[Gary Childress]

Because collectivism prioritizes the will of a collective over the freedom of individuals. That's definitional. And this creates a problem for Socialism: some people don't want to be Socialists. As you say, people are different: some want different things. Not all want to be scooped up into some collectivist project. They don't want to be taxed to death, they don't want to lose their private property, and maybe they even are happy to subsidize the genuinely needy, but don't want to become responsible for subsidizing the indolent and corrupt. They have their own reasons, but they don't want to submit to somebody else's imposed collective project.

But because Socialism is collectivist, it cannot allow those individuals to have their choice not to be Socialist -- that would ruin their Socialism, their collectivism because their ideology depends on everybody being "in." So, lacking total democratic consensus, they end up having to use force, instead of democratic means. And that means violence of various types. That's how it's always gone in history, and how it would go again, in any new Socialist state.

Are all forms of government restraint on a person's freedom "undemocratic"?

That depends. What amount of civic participation do you regard as definitive of "democratic"?

I don't know. What amount of civic participation do you think best defines a "democratic" society? I don't know where to draw the line.

Is social contract theory a recipe for tyranny?

Social contract theory is merely an heuristic device. It's not a description of a thing that has ever existed in reality. There was no "social contract" agreed upon by anybody. It was only proposed as a kind of "way of thinking about it," not as a historical truth.

So it's not the case that the US Constitution and Bill or rights or the Magna Carta would count as social contracts? And if not, why not?

Aren't the establishment of property rights a kind of restriction on freedom?

Not at all...unless you mean the "freedom" to steal somebody else's legitimate property.

Well, without laws, then the proverbial "law of the jungle" maybe takes over. If someone has an apple orchard (more apples than he can eat himself) and everyone else around him is starving and can't afford to give him what he wants for the apples, then they might kill him and take the apples. However, it seems like a social contract of some kind must exist in order to keep the would be murders from doing their thing by having police or something. Otherwise, what prevents survival of the meanest baddest most physically imposing.

[Immanuel Can]

Are all forms of government restraint on a person's freedom "undemocratic"?

That depends. What amount of civic participation do you regard as definitive of "democratic"?

I don't know. What amount of civic participation do you think best defines a "democratic" society? I don't know where to draw the line.

Well, if a polity has only one political party, one political program, and one political direction, and nobody gets even the chance to vote for something contrary to that package and have an impact, would you call that "democratic"?

Is social contract theory a recipe for tyranny?

Social contract theory is merely an heuristic device. It's not a description of a thing that has ever existed in reality. There was no "social contract" agreed upon by anybody. It was only proposed as a kind of "way of thinking about it," not as a historical truth.

So it's not the case that the US Constitution and Bill or rights or the Magna Carta would count as social contracts?

They're "contracts," alright. But not "social contracts." The "social contract" idea is a Rousseauian fiction. There never was a time when the whole of society "contracted" to abandon or subordinate some of their rights and freedoms to the collective. No historical incident of that kind ever took place.

You're confusing "constitution" or "bill of rights" with the idea of "social contract." You'd need to read Rousseau in order to see what he meant by "social contract." It wasn't something like the US Constitution or the Magna Carta at all. Neither of those had anything close to "social contract" agreement behind them.

Aren't the establishment of property rights a kind of restriction on freedom?

Not at all...unless you mean the "freedom" to steal somebody else's legitimate property.

Well, without laws,

Who's talking about that idea? Not me.

How would you secure a persons goods against "the law of the jungle" as you call it, without having laws that accord with property rights? But if property is a "right," then that means that it is a divine entitlement that exists prior to laws, and which good laws are morally bound to recognize and affirm.

However, it seems like a social contract of some kind must exist in order to keep the would be murders from doing their thing by having police or something.

You're mixing up two different things: social contract, and laws. They're not the same, and not even related.

Social contract is Rousseau's fictional nonsense about everybody having agreed to give up their freedoms to the State, which has never happened. Laws are practical arrangments human beings make to compel each other in certain ways, and they have happened. They're not even the same issue. You can and, in fact, do have laws without any "social contract."