'Religious left' emerging as U.S. political force in Trump era

[Conager]

Of course there is. That's what being a society is all about, it's like a family writ large; you don't begrudge Tiny Tim his health care just because he can't contribute any money towards it.



That has nothing to do with the above, and, in any case, what happens in real life is pretty much the opposite.

Why are you opposed to evolution? Are you some kind of religious nutcase?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Citizenship and Ethics. Isn't that the same concept as "collectively"? What obligation do I have to support someone who contributes nothing?

See post #122.

I don't have any answers here. I'm just asking the questions.

Of course you are.

 

[HisArpy]

See post #122.



Of course you are.

I'm not. I'm legitimately interested in this conversation as a learning tool. And, your link has the reason why:

Caveats

First and foremost, the Socratic method (asking questions you know the likely answer to in order to stimulate critical thinking) can be a legitimate mode of discourse. And in some cases, a person may simply not feel confident enough in their position to make an assertion, so they instead ask a question in order to gather more information or elicit others' thoughts before making up their mind about a particular stance.

Second, it should be clear that "just asking questions" only applies when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, and where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance. If, for example, someone phrased their political argument as a series of questions -- but provided sources to back up said questions, or has raised logical arguments in said questions -- then it is not enough to dismiss the argument as "just asking questions".

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why are you opposed to evolution? Are you some kind of religious nutcase?

What does evolution have to do with this? Our species is different from all others; evolution works by natural selection, a force which does not necessarily apply in a society of sentient beings, and there is no compelling ethical reason why it should apply.

 

[Rightguide]

The early Christians' congregational communism seems to have worked well enough -- but, of course, they were in little enclaves, living and working within a larger non-communist economy. When the whole Empire later went Christian, it did not go communist.

The anarcho-syndicalist economy of the Spanish Revolution, if that counts as socialist (it lacked any central direction by state or party), worked well while it lasted.



N.B.: American independence predates the emergence of capitalism in the industrial sense; it does not predate government.

it didn't work well, read William Bradford's account.

 

[hashtag46]

1.Citizenship and Ethics. Isn't that the same concept as "collectively"? What obligation do I have to support someone who contributes nothing? You even address that point and your solution is to throw out the non-contributors. Why should it be different for those who are "vulnerable"? Is it because they invoke sympathy by their plight? Is that something which we should encompass as a methodology to advance civilization and society?

2.I don't have any answers here. I'm just asking the questions.

2.Interesting discussion.

1.The highlighted parts (not sure if you used that language intentionally for discuss. sake) are exactly the neoliberal lingo which substituted, since the 70's economics, profit and society for citizenship.


Neoliberal - technocratic - corporatist philosophy maintains that self-interest should guide the individual, and profit should guide the society. That these principles are ethical in that even if a few might suffer or die Now due to the relentless pursuit of profit, that will help in the long term, because long term profit will benefit everyone.

.But that was a poor simulacre of ethics, either incompetent thinking or a fraud.
Because: did the social or health budget cuts in the US, or austerity measures in Greece lead to prosperity? No. Those countries are even worse.
-- They only ended up eviscerating public services, while the main problem (the system that produced all problems) was perpetuated.
-- Did any banks pay for the 2008 crash? No. The citizens paid the billion dollars bills, and the wall Street heads continued to get richer at the expense of lowered quality of your health,education and so on. "Too big to fail" my ass. The system is both incompetent and corrupt.


((I mainly attempted to sum up some ideas from an extraordinary book that I read recently, written by John Ralston Saul)).

 

[KingOrfeo]

it didn't work well, read William Bradford's account.

Googling "william bradford spanish revolution" turns up nothing.

 

[Rightguide]

Googling "william bradford spanish revolution" turns up nothing.

How god damn dumb are you? Google William Bradford + socialism + Plymouth Colony

 

[KingOrfeo]

How god damn dumb are you? Google William Bradford + socialism + Plymouth Colony

That is not the subject under discussion. You already mentioned Plymouth Colony; without contradicting your assessment of it, I cited the Spanish Revolution as a counter-example of a system where socialism (for certain values of "socialism") worked well.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

How god damn dumb are you? Google William Bradford + socialism + Plymouth Colony

Neither you nor any of the authors of the articles that come up when Googling those terms has a very good understanding of Communism, Capitalism or what Class, in economic terms, is and means.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Neither you nor any of the authors of the articles that come up when Googling those terms has a very good understanding of Communism, Capitalism or what Class, in economic terms, is and means.

I would assume Bradford was only practicing a kind of primitive Christian communism in a purely agrarian setting which was economically autarchic (i.e., like NK, not much engaged in trade with anyone outside); whether that can work or not has nothing to do with whether socialism can work in an industrialized economy.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I would assume Bradford was only practicing a kind of primitive Christian communism in a purely agrarian setting which was economically autarchic (not dependent on trade with anyone else); whether that can work or not has nothing to do with whether socialism can work in an industrialized economy.

My read of it is Bradford (ETA: according to the charter) was practicing an extension of the Feudal system. And YES - the Feudal system uses religion/Christianity to derive much of its authority for that economic arrangement.

My read of the transition of the economic arrangement is that people were rejecting Feudalism in favor of the Ancient fundamental class process, as Bradford said "every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves" which is NOT in any way Capitalism or the Capitalist fundamental class process.

 

[Tryharder62]

That is not what I had intended to say, but I can certainly appreciate that interpretation.

LOL

 

[BoyNextDoor]

LOL

You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt.

 

[KingOrfeo]

My read of the transition of the economic arrangement is that people were rejecting Feudalism in favor of the Ancient fundamental class process, as Bradford said "every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves" which is NOT in any way Capitalism or the Capitalist fundamental class process.

And there's the rub; Bot and the Liticon crowd would insist that that is exactly what capitalism is, and would deny the very existence of such thing as a "Capitalist fundamental class process," if they did not simply dismiss the phrase as meaningless. (What exactly does it mean, BTW?)

 

[KingOrfeo]

You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt.

That is not the Gospel of Our Lord and Employer the Supply-Side Jesus.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

And there's the rub; Bot and the Liticon crowd would insist that that is exactly what capitalism is, and would deny the very existence of such thing as a "Capitalist fundamental class process," if they did not simply dismiss the phrase as meaningless.

Yep. And it is by design. Aj/4-est has a fit if I discuss Class in economic terms and not as a substitute for a stratification of earnings. Earings has NOTHING to do with Class in economics.