Christianity

[Belinda]

You still conflate socialism and political communism.

I don't. Socialists and Communists do. Remember "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"? Weren't they "Communists"?

Socialists themselves don't really know the difference; at least, they don't know how to stop the one from tipping over into the other.

All communists are socialists. Most or some socialists are not communists.

[Sculptor]

Communism.
"For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in."
"If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all."
I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute,
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

"Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

[Immanuel Can]

Most or some socialists are not communists.

Justify that.

[Immanuel Can]

Communism.
"For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat...

Oh. So you think "Communism" means "charity."

Well, you're mighty great at being wrong...you've done it again.

[Belinda]

Most or some socialists are not communists.

Justify that.

Communism is a good idea. Unfortunately in the real world where men are unequal and there is always an elite group who boss the others, communism does not work.
Socialists seek to reduce the differential between the very rich and the very poor.

[Immanuel Can]

Most or some socialists are not communists.

Justify that.

Communism is a good idea.

Where has it proved to be "a good idea"?

Socialists seek to reduce the differential between the very rich and the very poor.

So do thieves.

But look at every Socialist state in history. How are they doing at that, if indeed, that's what they were trying to do?

[Belinda]

Justify that.

Communism is a good idea.

Where has it proved to be "a good idea"?

Socialists seek to reduce the differential between the very rich and the very poor.

So do thieves.

But look at every Socialist state in history. How are they doing at that, if indeed, that's what they were trying to do?

There are many and various motivations and reasons for stealing. Some thieves stole land centuries ago and their descendants are now landed aristocrats. Some thieves are so hungry they have to steal to stay alive or feed their families.
I wish your arguments were not threadbare but they are.

[Immanuel Can]

Communism is a good idea.

Where has it proved to be "a good idea"?

Socialists seek to reduce the differential between the very rich and the very poor.

So do thieves.

But look at every Socialist state in history. How are they doing at that, if indeed, that's what they were trying to do?

There are many and various motivations and reasons for stealing. Some thieves stole land centuries ago and their descendants are now landed aristocrats. Some thieves are so hungry they have to steal to stay alive or feed their families.
I wish your arguments were not threadbare but they are.

Sorry: I don't see your ideal Socialist state represented in your answer. Why not?

Why are you afraid to look at the data? Is not what every Socialist state always does a relevant thing to look at?

[Belinda]

Where has it proved to be "a good idea"?

So do thieves.

But look at every Socialist state in history. How are they doing at that, if indeed, that's what they were trying to do?

There are many and various motivations and reasons for stealing. Some thieves stole land centuries ago and their descendants are now landed aristocrats. Some thieves are so hungry they have to steal to stay alive or feed their families.
I wish your arguments were not threadbare but they are.

Sorry: I don't see your ideal Socialist state represented in your answer. Why not?

Why are you afraid to look at the data? Is not what every Socialist state always does a relevant thing to look at?

The socialist government of Clement Attlee in the UK just after the war was pretty good.

[Immanuel Can]

The socialist government of Clement Attlee in the UK just after the war was pretty good.

You could at most say that Atlee was able to make small, quasi-Socialist adjustments to small parts of the economy. You couldn't say the UK has ever been a Socialist state. That's quite a different thing.

Smal amounts of poison don't always kill people. But make the whole thing poison, and see what happens.

[Belinda]

The socialist government of Clement Attlee in the UK just after the war was pretty good.

You could at most say that Atlee was able to make small, quasi-Socialist adjustments to small parts of the economy. You couldn't say the UK has ever been a Socialist state. That's quite a different thing.

Smal amounts of poison don't always kill people. But make the whole thing poison, and see what happens.

Maybe you are getting the idea.

[Immanuel Can]

The socialist government of Clement Attlee in the UK just after the war was pretty good.

You could at most say that Atlee was able to make small, quasi-Socialist adjustments to small parts of the economy. You couldn't say the UK has ever been a Socialist state. That's quite a different thing.

Smal amounts of poison don't always kill people. But make the whole thing poison, and see what happens.

Maybe you are getting the idea.

The idea that full-on Socialism is poison? Oh yeah...that's pretty obvious.

But if you've not been asleep, you've already seen me, in other places, argue in favour of some limited role for government and collective management...like in food quality, or in the building of roads, and so forth. So that's no big deal.

[Belinda]

You could at most say that Atlee was able to make small, quasi-Socialist adjustments to small parts of the economy. You couldn't say the UK has ever been a Socialist state. That's quite a different thing.

Smal amounts of poison don't always kill people. But make the whole thing poison, and see what happens.

Maybe you are getting the idea.

The idea that full-on Socialism is poison? Oh yeah...that's pretty obvious.

But if you've not been asleep, you've already seen me, in other places, argue in favour of some limited role for government and collective management...like in food quality, or in the building of roads, and so forth. So that's no big deal.

It is pretty good actually. You recognise that socialism is a stage on a spectrum, psychologically and politically.

[Immanuel Can]

You recognise that socialism is a stage on a spectrum, psychologically and politically.

I recognize that government -- restricted government -- is unavoidable. I do not concede anything at all to Socialism, which is merely a toxic and demonstrably pernicious ideology, and has nothing of its own to contribute to governance or charity.

You can do all that stuff with no smack of Socialism at all. In fact, you'll do it better.

[RCSaunders]

Socialists seek to reduce the differential between the very rich and the very poor.

How? By taking the wealth away from the rich and giving it to the poor, or by simply taking the wealth away from the rich and making them poor? It has to be one or the other.

Why. Is the world really better if everyone is poor? That would certainly, "reduce the difference." There is no way to make everyone rich.

What makes it right to make other people what someone else thinks they ought to be--rich, poor, or otherwise?

Have you asked the poor if they really want you meddling in their lives to make things more fair for them?

Just stamp your foot and cry, "it ain't fair," because reality isn't fair--never has been and never will be, and no social/political system will ever change it. But they sure will ruin a lot of individual lives.