Do you agree that government should force large corporations to put people’s needs and interests before profit?
Do you agree that the inequality between rich and poor can be and should be changed to provide a decent life for all?
Do you agree that “right-wing” means supporting the rich against the poor?
Do you agree that unemployed workers should be hired by corporations rather than paying existing employees overtime?
Do you agree that everyone has the right to a decent home and other conveniences of modern life?
Congratulations. If you answered “yes” to any or all of those questions, you are almost a full-fledged Socialist. “I’m not a Socialist,” you say. “I am a liberal and/or Democrat.” Be that as it may, you should listen closely to what your party members say and see how many of these Socialist ideas are suggested. Minimum wage, tax the rich, and government assistance are all basic Socialist concepts. As further proof, the slogan for the Socialism 2006 conference was, “Build the Left, Fight the Right.”
Now I could start comparing you to such evil people as Marx and Stalin. However, the fact is that most liberals I know are very compassionate and very well-intentioned. Their heart is in the right place – it is their mind which is not willing to accept reality; the reality that Socialism does not work.
I will not ask you to take my word for it, though. www.socialistparty.org says it themselves: “Socialism has to be international. It's impossible to create socialism in one country.” Somehow, I do not see Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran eagerly bowing down and willingly giving his power over to socialism. Not even Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro have done that, and they lead the most Socialist countries in the world.
All you have to do is look at Hurricane Katrina to know that the government does not do things well. The government is inefficient, wasteful, and breeds corruption. Why would you want to give them more money and more power to dictate how people are going to live their lives?
If you are going to live this life, you have to understand you cannot legislate happiness. Our Declaration of Independence states we have the right of the “pursuit of happiness,” not to attain it. By giving people the right to reach their goals, we are also giving them the right to fail. You can make it a level playing field, but you cannot guarantee who is going to win. As a Socialist, you are saying that you cannot win.
However, I did say you were almost a true Socialist. Just wishing for a utopia is not enough; you must also support a Central government that would create it. If you really want to adopt Socialism, here are a few more things you must agree to. Again, this according to www.socialistparty.org:
You must agree that causing “increased misery to the rich” is not enough – to abolish poverty, the Central government must dictate every facet of your life.
You must agree that we should not pay taxes on defense, but rather give that money to other countries.
You must agree to adopt the occupation the Central government assigns you, as we cannot have two people competing for the same job.
You must agree not to purchase or own your own home, but rather be assigned a home owned by the Central government. You will also be rationed clothes, food and other necessities.
Finally, you must agree that the “Socialist Party supports Cuba…and we recognize the important advances the revolution brought to the poor and oppressed.” (Those “important advances” caused 8,000 Cubans to immigrate to the United States in 2005. Also, there are currently over 500 Cubans with legitimate American visas who are not allowed by the Central government to leave Cuba.)
Next time your favorite politician starts talking about how the government can help people, think carefully about what road you are going down.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Sorry, my friend, but I'm going to have to disagree on this one. I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. Answering "yes" to those questions does not automatically commit you to being a socialist; or, at the very least, not a pure, left-wing, authoritarian government socialist.
I, for one, do believe that our government (in particular, and opposed to the rather nebulous concept of "governments" at large) does have a responsibility to promote the general welfare of its people. I believe that this is still part of our Constitution. Far from subsidizing laziness, this is a call for general protection of persons against that which unfairly and unjustly tyrannizes them. In those by-gone days of yesteryear, before multinational corporations (who are given the same legal status as people, except that they are most often afforded exceptional protection under the law--limited liability, it's called--and they are for all practical purposes immortal), this idea was included to be a self-check on the government itself. In modern times, when these large, limited liability, immortal money machines can basically buy themselves laws, it is clear that the failure of our government in promoting the general welfare is not doing something about them--but they don't because they are indebted to them.
This leads to the vast inequality between the rich and the poor in this country. And, when I say "the poor" I do not just mean welfare mothers and inner city dwellers; if you look at the enormous gap between the uber-rich and the so-called "middle class," it is evident that the middle class is not the median socioeconomic class at all...they are, in fact, the upper-end poor.
I do not believe that "right-wing" necessarily means supporting the rich against the poor, although it certainly works that way in praxis a great deal. The great farce conducted in this country by families of corporate magnates is that they are the champions of middle class, Christian morality. I do not wish to pass judgment of them, but it appears by the fruit that many of them bear that they are not merely sinners who fail (as we all are), but those who would not know true Christian morality if it walked up and slapped them the way St. Nick did to Arius.
Ideally, no one would be hired by a corporation; but, that not withstanding, if they could provide jobs to potential workers--doesn't that seem like an economic boon? Even if you are nothing more than an economic determinist, wouldn't it make sense that more people earning a living wage increases the amount of spending in basic markets (food, housing, services, etc)? Seems like a no-brainer, that corporations should do more to increase employment (yes, at the cost of billions for the uber-rich).
I am bothered by your use of the phrase "right to a decent home," etc. Usually, this kind of reason leads to those who want to say "aha! you think then that people should be provided these things without working for them!" I, of course, think no such thing. I do, however, feel that it is a great crime--a very, very heinous crime--that there are millions of DESERVING poor in this country, millions who go hungry hundreds of millions waste more than most countries produce in a year. I think it is shameful and evil that those of us--right-wingers, by and large, who consider ourselves superior to our fellow, left-wing citizens due to our Christian morality--who claim to be Christians, allow this kind of social injustice to stand.
Christ tells us that we will always have the poor with us. Why is that? Does Jesus mean that because the poor will always exist, that we shouldn't concern ourselves with them? I think the answer to that needs to be a resounding no...otherwise, the rich man would not have ended up in hell while the beggar Lazarus ended up in Abraham's bosom. If you have your reward in this life, through wealth, power, and luxury, and do not seek to give to the poor what they, perhaps, may not "deserve"--woe will come upon you in the next world. The poor we will always have with us to give us opportunities to be almsgivers...to give freely to those who do may not deserve our largess or kindness--so that we may, in a small way, emulate the behavior of Our Lord, who gives freely to us, even though we do not deserve it.
St. John Chrysostom has a wonderful passage on this:
"And what is the specious plea of the many [for loving wealth]? I have children, one says, and I am afraid lest I myself be reduced to the extremity of hunger and want, lest I should stand in need of others. I am ashamed to beg. For that reason therefore do you cause others to beg? I cannot, you say, endure hunger. For that reason do you expose others to hunger? Do you know what a dreadful thing it is to beg, how dreadful to be perishing by hunger? Spare also your brethren! Are you ashamed, tell me, to be hungry, and are you not ashamed to rob? Are you afraid to perish by hunger, and not afraid to destroy others? And yet to be hungry is neither a disgrace nor a crime; but to cast others into such a state brings not only disgrace, but extreme punishment." from “Homilies on 1 Thessalonians"
Hmmm... Perhaps dgan is pointing out that, with the way things usually go, we are simply greasing the path to freeing the government to become socialistic by pushing it to take care of these admittedly moral problems.
Frankly, I can't see the entire US "rich" class suddenly deciding that genuine generosity (as opposed to publicity mongering) is better than doing better than the Joneses, who always get richer the more income one receives, it seems.
We depend on the government, because we have gradually and steadily taught ourselves that biblical truth and moral truth are just one opinion of many, and therefore disposable. We've quickly learned that giving a little in a grandiose way lets you get away without truly sacrificing to help others, and if you look outside your own country, you can get a bigger bang for your donated buck.
The real solution is for everyone independantly to truly care about their neighbor. But we live in a sin-ridden world, and there really isn't a solution for that till Christ returns and makes everything work right by force.
We can allow people to be generous freely, or we can MAKE them be generous. Of course, once you force it to happen, it isn't generosity anymore, so it becomes a semi-okay form of thievery with which Robin Hood would feel quite comfortable.
It comes down to whether it's moral to force people to do the right thing they should have chosen to do voluntarily in the first place. And, of course, if it's ok to force people to do it, then there really is a moral bottom line after all, so why did we abandon it? And who should be in charge of making that law? us? circumstance? God?
Good points made by both of you. Of course, the very nature of this article is a bit divisive, although I would assure you if I may that is not the intent. Much like Democracy, Socialism is not a tangible form of government. Rather, they are both philosophies on which a form of government is based. So one can be fully supportive (in their mind) of a "democratic" government, but have a socialistic way of thought. This is the point I am trying to make. Just because you believe everyone should have a vote in a democratic system does not necessarily have anything to do with your socialistic sympathies. And while everything is in degrees, I am merely suggesting that it is a very dangerous road you are beginning to travel when you see a problem and ask yourself, "How could the government address this?"
I agree poverty is a problem and I wish I could donate more of my time and money toward causes that would help the needy. However, when you are forced to have your wife and yourself both working fulltime to pay the taxes for the government funded programs, there is not much left over. Granted, if the government did not "force" this sort of donation, many would hold tightly to their own wealth. However, how many of us would be more gracious if we had the means to do so?
Also, the argument that more people earning a higher minimum wage makes an economy productive goes flatly against Economics 101. Those people living paycheck to paycheck contribute $1 to the economy for every $1 they spend. However, the evil corporations and uber-rich who invest cause a snowball effect where every $1 invested is returned several times over. In fact, while much of the wealthy create more wealth for themselves, the absence of that wealth slows the economy and costs many of the jobs you are advocating they provide.
A lack of faith in capitalism is the putting the first foot on the path to a socialistic approach...which is the reason for the article. I'm certainly not stating that everyone who cares about poverty is a Socialist. But I did want to make a strong point to be careful where that attitude leads.
I do agree, and stated in the article, that government is corrupt by its very nature. Corporations can make/buy their own laws because we have given the government the power to be influenced by them. If the government did not have the power to benefit the corporations, that corruption disappears immediately.
I also take issue with the definition of "poor" and "poverty". I lived in poverty working for $6/hr supporting a wife and child. We had enough for food and shelter, so I don't see why we were designated as part of the poverty class? We were not out of poverty until we could afford cable television, have nicer furniture, and buy a house in a nicer neighborhood. There are jobs going unfilled every day that can easily support an able-bodied person. Obviously, disabled and elderly are a different situation for a different argument. But the thought that some CEO making $50 million is somehow preventing someone else from buying food, clothes, and shelter is simply not logical. In fact, that $50 million will be invested in other companies that may employ the lower income individuals.
By increasing the minimum wage, the government now forces my employer to increase the wage of entry level employees. This leaves no money left in the budget to give raises to those who have been here for years. So in what way does this help increase the standard of living? You are lowering the common denominator rather than increasing someone's potential. You cannot force a corporation to spend more money on labor...they will simply rearrange the way the money is spent by not increasing wages or simply not offering as many jobs. Thus, you have effectively INCREASED the gap between the rich and "poor", and taken away many opportunities one may have had to cross that bridge.
I never said what I was proposing was in accord with Econ101 theories; as a matter of fact, what I said was meant to imply an amount of common sense. Having someone who has drawn absurd amounts of money--let's take the obvious Bill Gates example--off of his corporate empire pretty much kills a large portion of that money from being spent...simply because I just don't believe that any person could spend $48 billion in one lifetime. Granted that he is the most extreme example (and, also, I KNOW how much money he gives to charity...even so, he still can't get rid of that much money), but there are plenty of other examples of the uber-rich whose money does not see a return into the marketplace because they have so much of it (pop-starts and pro athletes who mismanage their affairs notwithstanding).
A more stable, steady-state economic model (which, yes, does run flatly against Econ101--which is taught by people who believe that 'The Wealth of Nations' is gospel-truth) would involve local, self-sustaining economies where every member can keep it alive through purchase of goods. What I was describing in my previous post was something of a "middle step" toward this.
Paycheck to paycheck living is a reality in this country...and, frankly, is a reality that many in and outside of this country wish they could get to. Capitalism's corporate model (what we might call Capitalism^n) is fundamentally not sustainable; you cannot have infinite growth in a finite sphere that contains finite resources. Therefore, it does not make rational sense to keep on with the 'to thenth' model.
There is an old adage that says "you're only as poor as you think you are." In terms of what is truly valuable--family, love, integrity, etc--there are plenty of poor people who are better off than those more economically well-off than them. And, there is a certain satisfaction that comes from surviving because of your own hard work; and yes, you're right, there are plenty such jobs out there if people would do them. That, however, is not the point at issue. It is none of our business what other people do; we're not called to judge them, we're called to give to them...even undeservedly. As St. John Chrysostom so clearly pointed out, it is a great sin to refuse to give to the poor. Notice, he doesn't qualify that with "the deserving poor" or "the poor that are poor through no fault of their own"--because, you see, when you harden your heart to those in need...when you can say "God doesn't want me to enable that person's immoral behavior" or "God wouldn't want me to give money to that bum, because he's just going to go buy another drink"...well, what you are doing is speaking for God; because, in fact, as Christians we are commanded, not suggested or encouraged to, but commanded to give alms.
In that regard, taxation is a necessary evil. Do I believe it could be done better? Absolutely. Do I think that corrupt politicians take more than their fair share off the top? Of course. And, yes, Karen, it would be wonderful if people would give of their own volition; and, dgan, yes, I have no doubt AT ALL that you are the kind of person who would give much more freely if you could. But for every one of you that there is in modern America, there are 10 who want nothing more than to live like Paris Hilton--because, of course, that is the ideal that our society has set up as the ideal. The question then, for me, then, is 'can it still be considered charity when you force people to give it?' The simple answer to that is, "I don't know" but that's something of a cop-out. But I'll tell you, I'm much more comfortable with that it than the alternative. Considering the fact that we already live in a welfare state, and seeing the number of people who go without basic needs, I am terrified to think of what would happen if it were eliminated.
Naturally, this is all a product of the de-Christianization of Western culture--brought on and inflamed by, I might all, the capitialistic mindset which glorifies the individual at the expense of the community. In that respect, I don't think Chrysostom would've have a problem with Robin Hood at all.
And, neither do I.
A few more quotes from the blessed Father of the Church:
"For we accomplish these things not by spending money but by making the correct choice. Almsgiving above all else requires money, but even this shines with a brighter luster when the alms are given from our poverty. The widow who paid in the two mites was poorer than any human, but she outdid them all."
"Nothing is more fallacious than wealth. It is a hostile comrade, a domestic enemy."
"[This is]the idea we should have of the rich and covetous - they are truly as robbers who, standing in the public highway, despoil the passersby."
But the real kicker is the longish one from one of the Homilies on Hebrews:
"'Give to him who begs from you and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.' Stretch out your hand; let it not be closed up. We have not been constituted examiners into others' lives, for then we should have compassion on no one. When you call upon Gold, why do you say, 'Remember not my sins?' So, even if that person is a great sinner, make this allowance in his case also, and do not remember his sins. It is a season of kindness, not of strict inquiry; of mercy, not of account" Err on the side of compassion, not caution.
"The frost is hard, and the poor man is cast out in rags, well-nigh dead, with his teeth chattering. Both by his looks and his air you should be moved. And yet, you pass by, warm and full of drink. How do you expect that God should deliver you when in misfortune? And often you will say to yourself, 'If I had found one that had done many wrong things, I would have forgiven him, so won't God forgive me?' Do not say this. You neglect the one who has done you no wrong, yet you would be able to help. How will he forgive you when you are sinning against him?"
"And it does not even stop here. Immediately accusations are brought against the suppliant. For why does he not work, you say? And why is he to be maintained in idleness? But, tell me, is it by working that you have what you have? Did you not receive it as an inheritance from your fathers? And even if you work, is this a reason why you should reproach another? Do you not hear what Paul says? For after saying 'If anyone will not work, let him not eat,' he says 'Do not be weary in well doing.' But what do they say? He is an impostor. What do you say, o man? Do you call him an impostor for the sake of a single loaf of bread or a garment? But you say, 'He will sell it immediately.' And do you manage all your affairs well? But what? Are all poor through idleness? Is no one so from calamity or shipwreck? None from lawsuits? None from being robbed? None from dangers? None from illness? None from other difficulties? If however we hear anyone bewailing such evils and crying out loud and looking up naked toward heaven, with long hair and clad in rags, at once we call him 'The impostor! That deceiver! The swindler!' Are you not ashamed? Whom do you call impostor? Do you accuse the man or give him a hard time? But you say 'he has means and pretends'. This is a charge against yourself, not against him. He knows he has to deal with the cruel, with wild beasts rather than rational persons. He knows that even if he tells his pitiable story, no one pays any attention. And on this account he is forced to assume an even more miserable guise, that he may melt your heart. If we see a person coming to beg in a respectable dress, 'This is an impostor' you say, 'and he comes in this way that he may be supposed to be of good birth.' If we see one in the contrary apparel, we reproach him too. What then are they to do. Oh the cruelty, oh the inhumanity! And why, you say, 'do they expose their maimed limbs?' Do you not see it is because of you? If we were truly compassionate, they would have no need of these artifices. If they persuaded us at the first appeal, they would not have contrived these devices. Who is there so wretched as to be willing to behave in an unseemly way, as to be willing to make public lamentations, with his wife destitute of clothing, with his children, to sprinkle ashes on himself? How much worse than poverty are these things?" Surely the lose of all personal dignity is more humiliating than poverty."
I do think there is something to be said for ... um ... research.
Growing up in Bolivia, the first you would give to are the ones who accost you on the street, and while they are easy to see, and very, very pitiful...even needy... giving a couple Bolivianos out to everyone you meet would bankrupt you and not really help any of them. There is a level of poverty that is untouched by a dose of cash dealt out once. Take the "teach a man to fish" axiom as your example.
But when you become friends to the poor, you can easily see where and what to give without them begging at all. It depends on how involved you are willing to be. If you won't touch, then you must depend on importunity as your sole guide, and that guide alone is easily deceived. We are to be wise, and it is not always a good thing to give to one who is a slave to something that will destroy him with what you give.
If you get involved you can give with wisdom. Eating with the hungry, working with those who cannot work enough to care for all that must be done, serving with those who must serve more than is possible, yes, even teaching those who don't know enough to provide for themselves yet. If the government must be involved, and I do agree there is much that MUST be done, the least they can do is invest in teaching first, so as to strengthen those they give to.
Even the druggy who begs for drugs can be given to in a way that may rescue,... if you allow yourself to be generous in friendship even more than funds.
I'm not saying, "Never give to a beggar." Sometimes one must depend on importunity to guide one's opportunity to give.
I'm saying, when we see importunity (and we are able) we should go further and make ourselves a friend to the one we help.
Well, let me put it this way. Say you came to my home and I said, "My home is a wreck. I need fifty dollars to hire a housekeeper," and you handed me a fifty . That fifty won't go far, and because of my habits, my house will soon be trashed again.
Now, I'm a friend, and you'd never do that. You'd step in and help, right?
Ok, say the only thing I knew was to purchase the time of a housekeeper, that is the only solution I can think of and I do ask for the fifty. Yes, you are beholden to give, but as my friend you might say, "can I ask why?" and I would tell you about my frustration with my home, and the problems from not cleaning it.
You would then be able to provide the service I was going to pay for and far more, helping me, perhaps, to get the house to a point where I could keep it up on my own..., if you were patient enough.
Sometimes the excuse for handing over the cash is that it's just plain easier than ministry. (And for the token attempt to make this apply to the government, they're just as guilty of this as each of us are individually.)
Well, Hermit, I didn't write this to start a debate about which is better - capitalism or socialism. I wrote it so that those who don't realize they are proponents for Socialism might come to that realization. And you, my friend, are repeating fundamental Socialist ideals.
Now we've had plenty of other conversations and I am glad to have you as a brother who has an evident wealth of knowledge and wisdom. And as it is a free country, you are free to hold to whatever fiscal philosophy you prefer. I just ask you to consider the type of politicians who agree with what you are saying 100%, and where exactly those politicians if put in power are going to take us.
I would also ask you to look at the history of socialist nations and examine again where you learned or developed your economic theory. I believe your theory is flawed and history has shown that. But again, I will agree to disagree here and I respect and welcome your input and contributions.
I'd say my primary influences are the words of Christ, and Steady-State Economics theorists.
More info on what Steady-State Econ is: http://www.npg.org/forum_series/steadystate.html
I find it difficult to believe our Constitution would favor income limits, rationed meal sizes to the general populace, and birth licenses issued by the government dictating how many children a woman can have. All of which are specifically outlined in Steady-State Economics which I have studied in macroeconomic theory.
As I say, you are free to hold to that belief. But what you are proposing is an abolishment of our Constitution and replacing it with a Socialist government. I am fine to agree to disagree as to whether that is a good thing -- my main goal is to point out to those who may be ignorant of the fact that such views represent core Socialist ideals.
If people want Socialism, that is fine. But call it what it is and know where that path leads.
From the Socialist Party website: "the Socialist Party supports Cuba against the vindictive aggression of the United States"
I think you are failing to draw a distinction between holding SOME principles that socialists hold, and being a member of the Socialist Party. That's as crazy as saying that anyone who favors gun control is a Democrat. Some people just aren't that easy to squeeze into little ideology boxes.
Also, I do not believe that EVERYTHING put forward by SSE theorists is a good thing; obvious, I don't agree with state issued birth liscences. But, you have to look at what is being put forward there in its own context. That is to say, as most econ theorists exist in mental framewords devoid of traditional Christian morality, it seems that there would need to be a government carrot-and-stick to be able to legislate population growth. However, a traditional Christian approach would be, rather, to encourage responsible parenting and the abstiences of sex when producing more children would be a burden on you or your community.
It's fine to agree to disagree, but it really irks me that people believe that you can be a Christian and a Capitalist. These ideologies are not complimentary; rather, they are mutually exclusive. One, at its core, is about the denial of selfish passions, the other is about the glorification of selfish passions. Christ himself says this in the gospel according to St. Matthew: "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon" (VI:24).
Whether or not our own country is the best way of doing things, I think, is up to some debate. Surely it is evident that we don't do much very well at all. But it seems to me that few question anything about the way we live in modern America, but we assume that God is a Capitalist. Many will be surprised at judgment when they discover that God is a monarch, and none of his decisions are debated in committee.
That last bit, by the way, was not meant to be directed at you, my friend; just a general statement. One of the few great things about our nation--this is, at least, true for now--is that we are free to disagree.
Pax vobiscum.
I think we are talking about two different things, making it appear we are further apart in our beliefs than is true. Ideologically, I agree with you 100%. The problem is that, as you say, people rarely fit into the same ideological box as the candidates who are running. None of them will represent your true beliefs fully.
This is why I feel it is important to make the distinction between personal belief and conviction and political activism. The reason I brought up the less noble of the SSE's "goals" is because people often latch on to one particular thing they like in a political candidate without considering what the result of that candidate being in power will be.
So while I agree that Capitalism ALLOWS more people to become greedy, it also gives you the freedom to not be greedy if that's what you choose to do. I am simply against government intervention to dictate this type of morality because at that point the horse is out of the barn and the abuse of power grows unchecked.
I do look forward to the day when the monarchy of Christ is restored and the world is devoid of corruption. But until that happens, I would prefer corruption to occur on an individual basis rather than on a nationwide scale in which I am forced to pay taxes to support such corruption.
Perhaps that clears things up a bit. I got the feeling (and someone else pointed it out to me as well) that we were each debating a separate topic.
Speaking of socializing? When are you going to post again. You do have a blog, you know... Remember?
I have found your blogs thought provoking which is what I think you aim for! The only problem I have with them is that they are so few
I agree, dgan. You need to return to the dark side of the blogosphere.
Post a Comment