Get E-Mail Updates

What Is and Isn't Socialism

When President Obama took questions from Congressional Republicans recently, he spoke about Republican characterizations of his health-care reform plan as something akin to a "Bolshevik plot." There was a smattering of applause. I did not know what to make of this. A few days later, the DailyKos, a liberal blog site, released the results of a poll of Republicans where one of the questions was: "Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?" Sixty-three percent of the respondents answered yes. Twenty-one percent said no and sixteen percent answered not sure.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

This made me wonder whether or not our political discourse is so polarized that many Republicans actually think that Barack Obama's politics stand on the extreme left of the ideological spectrum. They seem not to be aware that there are people on President Obama's left that see him as much too much in the center, or too far to the right. And let us be clear: President Obama did not campaign from the left.

Let us consider socialism. To think that President Obama is a socialist displays an ignorance of the facts of socialism. Basically, socialism as explicated by Karl Marx is a political and economic system where the means of production are owned by the state and run by a dictatorship of the proletariat, the working class. Marx saw socialism as an interim step between capitalism and communism. Communism, in his mind, was a utopian ideal where people were free from providing the basic needs of life for themselves, and work would be an exercise of self expression.

There is nothing in either of the health-care bills passed so far by Congress that calls for the United States to take ownership of hospitals, medical centers, or medical practices. Doctors would not become government employees. President Obama told the Republican Congress members that he based much of his health-care proposal on suggestions made by former Republican senators Bob Dole and Howard Baker, along with former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle. This approach left private, employer-based insurance at the heart of the system. President Obama took criticism from people on his left for this.

When we look at socialism as a political philosophy, we see thinking that minimizes the importance of private property, especially private ownership of large businesses and of natural resources. It calls for the equitable distribution of wealth that is created through labor turning raw materials into useful goods. Marx thought that one way to move from capitalism to socialism was through class warfare. V.I. Ulyanov Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Worker's Party. He and later Stalin brought one-party rule to Russia through violence and oppression. Socialism linked to violent repression, failed planned economies, famine, and even genocide have given it a bad name.

But the history of socialism is full of various theories and experimental communities. Some of these were Christian: Anabaptists, Diggers, and Christian socialists in Europe, many of whom entered the political process and became part of the government. Latin American liberation theology and African-American liberationist thought teaches that God is a God of the oppressed, and that Christianity calls for a political economy that takes care of the least among us.

Socialism is not evil. Political and economic systems are amoral, neither moral nor immoral. It is what we do with them that make them moral or not.

Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:53pm

But, if one examines the incremental steps toward government centralization and ownership, then Obama is at best a gradualist on the trajectory towards socialism.

This is where the logic falls apart. Our political culture is actually pretty anti-socialist because of the very construction of our system (including more layers of government than anywhere else in the world).

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:54pm

LIberty is not license, and is thus inherently self-limiting. Polluters are trespassing upon the property rights of others, and thus are acting in such a way contrary to the wishes of those upon whom they trespass. This may or may not be "violent," but it is nonetheless a trespass. The 'force' upon them is not a trespass upon them, but retribution for their trespass upon another. Likewise in any other situation where somebody's "freedom" harms another... that is not truly freedom, because somebody's freedom was trespassed upon.

I think in principle we agree, but I didn't make any statements about what happens when property is trespassed upon. Folks like Deacon believe this is fine because it socializes their preferences because they are unwilling to bear the costs of negotiating with others peacefully. So they need the power of the sword.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:55pm

It doesn't matter whether or not they are near the tax bracket. He was making a point about factuality versus your projection upon somebody's values and motives.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:55pm

LIberty is not license, and is thus inherently self-limiting.

Without transcendent principles (sometime known as law), the two can become synonymous.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:59pm

Sam, you must not know Deacon very well. He's the all-knowing, all-discerning heart knower. He knows the thoughts, motives, and attitudes of everybody. He even knows the numbers of the hairs on their heads!

BlueDeacon is intuitive, and can discern motives to a point. He's not inaccurate on everything, even about somebody's attitudes and motives, but is very pompous with his "gift" of discernment, using it to bludgeon everybody with his arrogance.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:00pm

I'm not speaking legally, but ethically. If everybody is, in actuality, free, nobody has the license to aggress or trespass upon another because it would be violating their freedom.

by: Josh_Rowley

02-05-2010 @ 5:09pm

I agree with you that Jesus was nonviolent. But your definition of violence is so broad that it makes nonviolence impossible.

Certainly, though, the state (whether the U.S. government or any other government) uses coercion. The state is by nature coercive. The church, which does not use coercion (in theory, at least), provides an alternative politics to the politics of the state. For example, whereas the church calls people to give of their wealth voluntarily, the states taxes people--and imposes legal penalties on persons who refuse to pay their taxes.

by: adamfnewby

02-05-2010 @ 5:12pm

I don't want to pay taxes for military force. Yet I'm being forced to. So I guess that's immoral.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 5:18pm

Could you stop projecting your opinions, judgments, and insulting innuendo regarding BlueDeacon, please?

Hardly the stuff of civil discourse.

I'm not interested in having a discussion with you if you insist on continuing these sorts of pronouncements.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 5:21pm

I'm so happy to see you admit that the previous Republican majority in Congress stole from us! There's hope, after all :)!

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 5:30pm

On the contrary -- it matters a lot. Historically, the people who have complained the most about "taking from the rich to give to the poor" are those who don't see themselves as "rich"; for example, "white flight" from the cities in the 1950s through the '70s did not take place among the wealthy. It's one thing to propose hypotheticals, but not when they square with what actually happens.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 5:35pm

In a perfect world that would be correct; however, you keep ignoring a primary issue: Sin. (You're tired of my saying that, I know, but it's not going away.)

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 5:41pm

However, Jesus did resort to "verbal violence" more than once (any any psychologist knows that it can be worse) and occasionally made statements that could be taken as personal insults.

by: ckgmail

02-05-2010 @ 6:06pm

Yeah. See Matthew 23.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:57pm

haha... yes!

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:57pm

Sin is precisely the reason I espouse what I do.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:58pm

Only if you insist that BlueDeacon stops projecting about the values, motives, and attitudes of others, which was precisely my complaint. It is not uncivilized because it is calling an uncivilized form of discourse (his projecting) onto others. I'm merely pointing it out.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:59pm

So what's your point? That you're okay being forced (at gunpoint) to pay taxes so that a military can use guns and weapons and bombs to kill innocent civilians?

by: Ngchen

02-05-2010 @ 6:36pm

So is your point that ANY AND ALL GOVERNMENT IS IMMORAL? Since by definition, government has to coerce at least some people.

Recall what Jesus said about governing authorities, not to mention practicalities such as standards and so forth, and one will readily see that at least some government is necessary and good. Can government be too big and controlling? Most certainly, and we should watch out for that.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 6:54pm

Then I would say you don't have a handle on its pervasiveness.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 7:02pm

It is not uncivilized because it is calling an uncivilized form of discourse (his projecting) onto others. I'm merely pointing it out.

You in fact have done no such thing. As a serious student of history, I make my judgments generally on what has already happened and don't assume that people will change with the times (as King Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun"). OTOH, I hear others make their arguments based purely on emotions and on unchallenged belief systems which, in the long run, hold no water because they have no real basis. You're simply angry with me because I won't accept on face value what you say; truth is, I'm a tad too cynical to do that.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 7:30pm

No, I just realize that peaceful human behavior cannot be achieved thru violenc. Didint dr king preach that?

by: Kat12

02-12-2010 @ 3:05pm

In some ways, small rural areas have better communication than larger areas--word of mouth.

Perhaps your local weekly needs better advertising to depend less on government notices?

by: BlueDeacon

02-11-2010 @ 4:07pm

Atheism isn't a requirement of socialism. I provided common traits of socialism above. Based on your response, I would say that you agree with all of them, but refuse to call yourself a socialist.

I would thus say that your definition of "socialism" is way too broad, if for no other reason that it includes nearly everybody. Except, of course, yourself. (And setting yourself up as "the only one" is getting close to self-worship, a form of delusion.)

You must debate some really weenie atheists! Appeals to emotion wouldn't satisfy any atheist I have talked to.

Well, I'm not talking about emotions -- I'm talking about not only the evidence for God but also how He intervenes in history. There are some things that atheism just cannot explain -- and many atheists don't even try to. Atheism, having to consistent transcendent truths, simply cannot (especially in this country) offer any reason for justice and reconciliation other than they just "feel good." There has to be a basis.

...you couldn't trust your interpretation of them because your mind is as damaged by sin as any other mind.

Unless the Holy Spirit "quickens" you, you won't even realize that your mind is darkened by sin. I am fully aware of my own propensity toward such, so I don't hold myself as completely trustworthy. OTOH, He also illumines my mind as to what really is true, especially according to the Word.

You know if by observation, experience, and reason. You can understand the Bible because God has given you the ability to reason. And you can discern spiritual truth from falsehood because your reason can compare spiritual claims against the Bible. And these same methods apply to knowledge of economics for determining what is true and what isn't.

This is where your "reasoning" falls apart completely. Many people read the Bible and have done so over the years to glean "principles"; yet they miss its central doctrine of redemption through Jesus Christ. And here's the question I want to ask you: Is God the LORD even of economics, or is He not? Your answer can be a clue as to your eternal state.

Above you referred to Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Desmund Tutu and Martin Luther King, all of whom are men tainted by sin, yet you have enough ability to reason to be able to read their writings, understand what they wrote, and assess the truth of their statements. This proves that you really don't believe what you wrote above about sin darkening the mind. You trust your own mind and the minds of others who think like you.

It does no such thing, for I have serious disagreements with all of them, especially King (whose belief system was similar to yours in some aspects). They did, however, get a lot of things right. And, on top of that, they work properly, which is important because God is very practical.

by: fundamentalist

02-10-2010 @ 8:07pm

PS, Above you referred to Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Desmund Tutu and Martin Luther King, all of whom are men tainted by sin, yet you have enough ability to reason to be able to read their writings, understand what they wrote, and assess the truth of their statements. This proves that you really don't believe what you wrote above about sin darkening the mind. You trust your own mind and the minds of others who think like you.

by: fundamentalist

02-10-2010 @ 8:04pm

"Well, I'm not an atheist. Is that sufficient by your standards?"

No. Atheism isn't a requirement of socialism. I provided common traits of socialism above. Based on your response, I would say that you agree with all of them, but refuse to call yourself a socialist.

"

by: BlueDeacon

02-10-2010 @ 6:03pm

The difference is where that profit comes from -- subscriptions or the stock market.

by: BlueDeacon

02-10-2010 @ 6:01pm

Tell me one thing about socialism you disagree with.

Well, I'm not an atheist. Is that sufficient by your standards?

I asked "how do you respond to agnostics who claim that there is no truth in religion?"

Either Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo (I can't remember which) answered this question: What kind of faith would have sustained the likes of Desmond Tutu while he was fighting apartheid in South Africa or MLK Jr. when he was imprisoned for trying to overthrow Jim Crow in the South? What in the world do you think motivated them to "keep on" in the face of intractable opposition? Certainly not the "inherent goodness" of man because it clearly wasn't existent at that point, and agnostics and atheists don't really have an answer at that point.

So does sin affect theology? If so, then how do you know you have the truth about God and Jesus?

Sure, it can -- witness "prosperity theology," which has been bludgeoned, and rightfully so, on this very blog. However, a good rule to follow is: Whom does it seek to glorify -- man or God?

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 8:28pm

King understood, and exploited, the difference between violence and confrontation, the latter which is often necessary (and has been known to precipitate violence). For example, I have never been a violent person but often confrontational, which has made me a ton of enemies over the years. (So was King, BTW -- and in fact he died for that reason.)

by: fundamentalist

02-09-2010 @ 5:26pm

"Are you calling me a socialist?"

Tell me one thing about socialism you disagree with.

"God's power must be demonstrated through the actions of His people because He isn't in the habit of doing magic..."

How is that a response to my question? It doesn't even make sense. I asked "how do you respond to agnostics who claim that there is no truth in religion?"
Clearly you must argue with them. Your not shy about it on this blog. What do you say if you don't think there is any truth?

"Sin affects every area of life, including economics, and denying that simply will not help the discussion..."

So does sin affect theology? If so, then how do you know you have the truth about God and Jesus?

by: BlueDeacon

02-09-2010 @ 5:08pm

Darn right it's about control -- but for the corporation, not necessarily the consumer. That's why corporations lobby so hard for less regulation.

BTW, your motives have been crystal-clear since you started posting here -- if not to you, than to everyone who doesn't subscribe to right-wing ideology. So take that for what you will.

by: BlueDeacon

02-09-2010 @ 5:01pm

It's typical of socialists to try to obfuscate issues when capitalists clarify them by falling back on their polylogism and claiming there is no truth. Just saying there is not truth doesn't make it so.

Are you calling me a socialist? Because you're barking up the wrong tree if you are.

So how do you respond to agnostics who claim that there is no truth in religion, or Marx's claim that religion is just a crutch for weak people?

You can't, directly. God's power must be demonstrated through the actions of His people because He isn't in the habit of doing magic (what some people call "miracles").

Economics is the search for truth about human behavior in the marketplace. And no, humans aren't that screwed up. Human nature hasn't changed since the beginning and humans act rationally most of the time, so their behavior is predictable to a large degree.

With that statement, you identified yourself as a theological liberal. Sin affects every area of life, including economics, and denying that simply will not help the discussion -- and I will keep hammering at that until it's accepted as propositional truth.

by: Ballfour

02-09-2010 @ 12:22pm

Wait a minute...instead of ACTUALLY ADDRESSING MY POINT you questioned my motives (ad hominem attack)? Gosh...where have I heard that song before?

My point was the market will correct itself. Counter?

The point is really control. The government will not give out "free" health care (as the President articulated last week). They will take OUR MONEY and pay for their own system they will force us into. In oher words: they will set up their own "evil corporation" and force us to buy insurance from it.

I would rather shop myself and be able to influence the market...or not buy any at all.

TWO POINTS-if you are going to respond, respond DIRECTLY to at least one, don't go off on ad hominems, straw men, or quote the tooth fairy...

by: fundamentalist

02-09-2010 @ 12:19pm

Yes, we do have a mixed economy, but it's not 50/50. It's far more socialist than free. The result is more poverty, greater national debt, higher taxes, and lower wages than we would have had with a freer market.

Corporate dominance is not capitalism. It's just corruption which results from greater socialism. Corporate dominance happens because corps bribe politicians to protect them or give them power they can't get in the free market. Capitalism limits the power of the state over the economy and gives corporations no reason to bribe politicians. Without political power, corps have no power.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 9:13pm

Yes, he did. But my point here is that the only time in the entire New Testament Jesus (God) is recorded as resorting to turning over tables and using whips is in response to commerce and market values infringing on God's space and people. I would think that would be a message to those who believe so steadfastly that God is a capitalist, and see no tension between free market and Biblical values :).

by: fundamentalist

02-09-2010 @ 12:12pm

Medicare and medicaid deny healthcare to people all of the time. They have strict rules for what they will pay for. Nations that have universal healthcare do the same. They have limited funds. Mostly they deny end-of-life care to the elderly, care which is common in the US, and they ration healtcare by extending waiting periods for treatment for years in many cases.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 9:22pm

It's necessary to remember why He did that. The merchants had set up in the Court of the Gentiles, essentially keeping them from worshipping God -- keep in mind that when he said "It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer [for all nations]," He was quoting Isaiah [56:7]. In other words, in that context it was a racial/ethnic issue, not just a commercial one.

by: fundamentalist

02-09-2010 @ 12:04pm

BlueDeacon, I had to move over here to reply to your last post.
It's typical of socialists to try to obfuscate issues when capitalists clarify them by falling back on their polylogism and claiming there is no truth. Just saying there is not truth doesn't make it so.

So how do you respond to agnostics who claim that there is no truth in religion, or Marx's claim that religion is just a crutch for weak people?

Economics is the search for truth about human behavior in the marketplace. And no, humans aren't that screwed up. Human nature hasn't changed since the beginning and humans act rationally most of the time, so their behavior is predictable to a large degree.

But more importantly, every economic system is built on a theory of economics. And most of what Congress deals with are economic issues. No one can function in society without some theory of economics. Just as everyone has a worldview, whether they recognize it or not, everyone has a theory of economics they operate by and make decisions with. A lot of people call their philosophy pragmatism. Pragmatism is in vogue today. But pragmatism is a theory of economics that says the long run doesn't matter. Live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself. Of course, pragmatists are always surprised when something goes wrong.

by: JohnH54

02-09-2010 @ 11:58am

Certainly you would because your view is that people should work for free to serve you. BUT that does not change the fact that 3500 people will no longer have a dr and a productive tax payer will pay less taxes. Expanding a program to everyone is a good solution?

by: kansasmennonite

02-09-2010 @ 11:03am

If I had a million in the bank and in my 60's I'd probably quit work also!

by: JohnH54

02-09-2010 @ 9:15am

But the investments only failed because people did not pay back the loans. The fact that they were securitized contributed to, but did not cause, the problem. The loans not being paid back was the cause. And the reason the loans were not paid back was because the govt encouraged and even required the banks to make these irresponsible loans.

As to health care, the proposal is already to cut Medicare spending by a significant amount. My own doctor told me (and I have no reason to doubt him), that if Medicare reimbursement rates drop, the will either stop taking care of Medicare patients or retire. He makes less money than he does 10 years ago. If he stops practicing medicine, and he says five of his friends, also in their early 60s intend to do the same, his 3500 patients will have to go elsewhere. If all six of them quit, you have 20,000 people without a regular doctor. You just cannot walk down the street and find another doctor.

Many studies shwo that preventive care does not always lead to cost savings. In fact, it can increase costs.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661

by: Patricia

02-09-2010 @ 3:27am

I never said it was all greedy bankers - the rest of the financial sector certainly contributed, by chopping up all those loans made to people who could not afford them, and sold them as high-yield investments, for instance. People who could not afford loans were a small part of the problem compared to what happened to the loans after they were made. It wasn't marginal borrowers who caused the housing bubble - that was pure, greedy, speculation by those who were better off.

Regarding health care, you are assuming, I think, that medicare rates are somehow set in stone and could never be adjusted to provide better reimbursement. I am not saying medicare is perfect, but I think it's the system to begin with and build on. Adjustments can be made, but we have to begin.

And I also think you're making assumptions regarding less care for all. Why would this necessarily need to be so? We could have smarter, more effective care under a medicare for all system, for all you know. We could have better preventive care. We could have fewer unnecessary procedures. We could have more efficient medical records. We could have standards-based care. Other nations are successful (granting that no system is perfect), why wouldn't ours be? Are we, somehow, inherently less capable than the rest of the industrialized world?

Finally, I'd like to know where all these doctors who leave would go, since every other industrialized nation already has some form of government-administered universal care. They couldn't go anywhere in Europe, or to Canada, or to Japan, or to Taiwan, or to China...where would they all go :)?

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:11pm

So if political systems are amoral, and it's "what we do with them" that makes them moral, socialism is not evil if it is voluntary (hence the success of the Acts 2 early church). I have no problem with that.

But if it is involuntarily forced upon people who would rather be free than be told how to live, what to do with their labor and property, then it is immoral. Anything forced upon somebody against their will is an act of violence, and is inherently immoral. Excusing such acts of violence in the name of "common good" or "social justice" does not negate the inherently violent nature of the act. To excuse it would be to place primacy of one individual's subjective preference over that of another's. Nothing in Scripture gives any Christian authority to claim a unique privileged stance to force others to live as we believe they ought to.

by: BlueDeacon

02-09-2010 @ 2:42am

Please -- all you're trying to do is insult me because I won't kowtow to your
ideas. The problem is not that corporations make a profit; rather, they jimmy
the system to focus almost exclusively on profit, to the detriment of their
customers -- and, because they have all that money rolling in, they have no
reason to change.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:11pm

Thank you for pointing things out.

And here's something that's related to such: When I hear people say that "we're losing our 'freedoms,'" I suspect what they really mean is "We're losing our privileged status." I'm not about to forget that MLK Jr. was (and in some circles still is) denounced as a Communist.

by: BlueDeacon

02-09-2010 @ 2:39am

To answer your questions:

1) Yes, no economic theory is correct, nor can it ever be. The human
race is too screwed up to follow one.

2) It has nothing to do with my "contempt" for economics; rather, based on
your posts, it's probably safe to say that you worship economics. And
the God I know won't put up with that.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:13pm

Sorry, but such is necessary in a society where people have to live together. No person (or family) is an island.

by: xfree9

02-09-2010 @ 2:33am

Not if it infringed on another's freedom.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:27pm

Nobody must involuntarily lose freedom to achieve progress. When people lose "privileged status" I don't really care. But freedom is necessary for equality and social justice to be achieved ethically. Nobody's freedoms are subjective to the whims and preferences of others.

by: Patricia

02-06-2010 @ 12:09am

Agreed :).

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:11pm

So if political systems are amoral, and it's "what we do with them" that makes them moral, socialism is not evil if it is voluntary (hence the success of the Acts 2 early church). I have no problem with that.

But if it is involuntarily forced upon people who would rather be free than be told how to live, what to do with their labor and property, then it is immoral. Anything forced upon somebody against their will is an act of violence, and is inherently immoral. Excusing such acts of violence in the name of "common good" or "social justice" does not negate the inherently violent nature of the act. To excuse it would be to place primacy of one individual's subjective preference over that of another's. Nothing in Scripture gives any Christian authority to claim a unique privileged stance to force others to live as we believe they ought to.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:11pm

So if political systems are amoral, and it's "what we do with them" that makes them moral, socialism is not evil if it is voluntary (hence the success of the Acts 2 early church). I have no problem with that.

But if it is involuntarily forced upon people who would rather be free than be told how to live, what to do with their labor and property, then it is immoral. Anything forced upon somebody against their will is an act of violence, and is inherently immoral. Excusing such acts of violence in the name of "common good" or "social justice" does not negate the inherently violent nature of the act. To excuse it would be to place primacy of one individual's subjective preference over that of another's. Nothing in Scripture gives any Christian authority to claim a unique privileged stance to force others to live as we believe they ought to.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:11pm

Thank you for pointing things out.

And here's something that's related to such: When I hear people say that "we're losing our 'freedoms,'" I suspect what they really mean is "We're losing our privileged status." I'm not about to forget that MLK Jr. was (and in some circles still is) denounced as a Communist.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:11pm

Thank you for pointing things out.

And here's something that's related to such: When I hear people say that "we're losing our 'freedoms,'" I suspect what they really mean is "We're losing our privileged status." I'm not about to forget that MLK Jr. was (and in some circles still is) denounced as a Communist.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:13pm

Sorry, but such is necessary in a society where people have to live together. No person (or family) is an island.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:13pm

Sorry, but such is necessary in a society where people have to live together. No person (or family) is an island.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:27pm

Nobody must involuntarily lose freedom to achieve progress. When people lose "privileged status" I don't really care. But freedom is necessary for equality and social justice to be achieved ethically. Nobody's freedoms are subjective to the whims and preferences of others.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:27pm

Nobody must involuntarily lose freedom to achieve progress. When people lose "privileged status" I don't really care. But freedom is necessary for equality and social justice to be achieved ethically. Nobody's freedoms are subjective to the whims and preferences of others.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:27pm

So you believe that violence is necessary?

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:27pm

So you believe that violence is necessary?

by: SamHamilton

02-05-2010 @ 4:30pm

The first step towards have a constructive dialogue with people that disagree with you is to take them at their word. You might suspect that's what they mean, but perhaps it's not.

For example, if the President were to propose a top income bracket of 95% and someone who fell into that bracket said "I'm losing my freedom to do what I want to with my money" isn't what he's saying factually accurate? Obviously, if a rich person were to be made poor or middle class by incredibly high tax levels he'd also be losing much of his status in our society, but it's not untrue that he's losing his freedoms as well. You should take people at their word instead of putting words into their mouths.

by: SamHamilton

02-05-2010 @ 4:30pm

The first step towards have a constructive dialogue with people that disagree with you is to take them at their word. You might suspect that's what they mean, but perhaps it's not.

For example, if the President were to propose a top income bracket of 95% and someone who fell into that bracket said "I'm losing my freedom to do what I want to with my money" isn't what he's saying factually accurate? Obviously, if a rich person were to be made poor or middle class by incredibly high tax levels he'd also be losing much of his status in our society, but it's not untrue that he's losing his freedoms as well. You should take people at their word instead of putting words into their mouths.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 4:31pm

I wouldn't go so far as to say ANYTHING...some things, many things, even most things, but anything? I have a problem with that. There are many things that are "forced on somebody against their will" that are not inherently immoral. The majority in a community deciding to increase a school levy "forces" everyone in the community to pay, even those who don't want to - is this inherently immoral? An advocacy group forces a polluting industry to clean up their contaminated soil and water against the industry's will - is this inherently immoral?

I believe as a general rule, people should be able to do whatever they want with their labor and their property. But there are occasions where someone doing that they want infringes upon the rights of someone else not to be harmed. Sometimes - not as often as some liberals believe and not as rarely as some conservatives maintain - it is moral to "force" someone against their will to stop harming someone else.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 4:31pm

I wouldn't go so far as to say ANYTHING...some things, many things, even most things, but anything? I have a problem with that. There are many things that are "forced on somebody against their will" that are not inherently immoral. The majority in a community deciding to increase a school levy "forces" everyone in the community to pay, even those who don't want to - is this inherently immoral? An advocacy group forces a polluting industry to clean up their contaminated soil and water against the industry's will - is this inherently immoral?

I believe as a general rule, people should be able to do whatever they want with their labor and their property. But there are occasions where someone doing that they want infringes upon the rights of someone else not to be harmed. Sometimes - not as often as some liberals believe and not as rarely as some conservatives maintain - it is moral to "force" someone against their will to stop harming someone else.

by: atwclw

02-05-2010 @ 4:31pm

Respectfully, I disagree with this post and its main thesis, namely that Obama is not advancing socialism. If you mean that Obama is not openly touting his system at socialist, then I'll agree. But, if one examines the incremental steps toward government centralization and ownership, then Obama is at best a gradualist on the trajectory towards socialism. To endorse his actions with banks, healthcare, and the auto industry as quasi-capitalist is naive.

An apt politician that he is, he knows there is no possible way to advance socialism in name. That would political suicide. Is his presidency strictly Socialist? No, I do not believe so. But is it vehemently anti-Socialist? No, I do not believe so. Obama's actions would prove your thesis correct if he were not associated with and infiltrated by individuals who are soft on Socialism.

by: atwclw

02-05-2010 @ 4:31pm

Respectfully, I disagree with this post and its main thesis, namely that Obama is not advancing socialism. If you mean that Obama is not openly touting his system at socialist, then I'll agree. But, if one examines the incremental steps toward government centralization and ownership, then Obama is at best a gradualist on the trajectory towards socialism. To endorse his actions with banks, healthcare, and the auto industry as quasi-capitalist is naive.

An apt politician that he is, he knows there is no possible way to advance socialism in name. That would political suicide. Is his presidency strictly Socialist? No, I do not believe so. But is it vehemently anti-Socialist? No, I do not believe so. Obama's actions would prove your thesis correct if he were not associated with and infiltrated by individuals who are soft on Socialism.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 4:33pm

Well, he DID pretty violently drive those money-changers out of the temple :). Interesting that that's the only time he resorted to physical force and "violence" :).

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 4:33pm

Well, he DID pretty violently drive those money-changers out of the temple :). Interesting that that's the only time he resorted to physical force and "violence" :).

by: SamHamilton

02-05-2010 @ 4:38pm

I appreciate what Valerie's doing here - trying to define a term before throwing it around. I wish many on the right and the left would do this before using certain terms.

I think what President Obama's critics are getting at when they call him a socialist is that they believe there's a continuum, with total free market capitalism on one end and total communism on the other. We can all argue about where certain countries and where certain politicians fall along that continuum (I think Obama is closer to the free market end than the communist end), but there is no doubt that he wants to move the U.S. further along the continuum away from free market and closer to socialism (which, as Valerie mentions, is a precursor to communism). So when Obama's critics call him a socialist, it's not that they think he's equivalent to Castro or Mao or even some leftist European politician, but it's that they see his inclination is to move our society closer to that end.

On a side note, citing Obama's actual policies as evidence that he's not inclined towards socialism isn't evidence that he's not. He's also a pragmatic and smart politician and knows he can't get everything he wants. I better indicator of what he sees as the political ideal is to pay attention to what he has said before becoming President and has been forced to compromise.

by: SamHamilton

02-05-2010 @ 4:38pm

I appreciate what Valerie's doing here - trying to define a term before throwing it around. I wish many on the right and the left would do this before using certain terms.

I think what President Obama's critics are getting at when they call him a socialist is that they believe there's a continuum, with total free market capitalism on one end and total communism on the other. We can all argue about where certain countries and where certain politicians fall along that continuum (I think Obama is closer to the free market end than the communist end), but there is no doubt that he wants to move the U.S. further along the continuum away from free market and closer to socialism (which, as Valerie mentions, is a precursor to communism). So when Obama's critics call him a socialist, it's not that they think he's equivalent to Castro or Mao or even some leftist European politician, but it's that they see his inclination is to move our society closer to that end.

On a side note, citing Obama's actual policies as evidence that he's not inclined towards socialism isn't evidence that he's not. He's also a pragmatic and smart politician and knows he can't get everything he wants. I better indicator of what he sees as the political ideal is to pay attention to what he has said before becoming President and has been forced to compromise.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:50pm

For example, if the President were to propose a top income bracket of 95% and someone who fell into that bracket said "I'm losing my freedom to do what I want to with my money" isn't what he's saying factually accurate?

The people who are saying this are nowhere near that tax bracket and in fact wouldn't complain (in part because they know full well how to hide their money legally). Similarly, the people who complained about MLK Jr. being a Communist weren't by and large the wealthy who, for the most part, feel pretty secure in their status. It's those of lesser means who feel threatened because they're more aware of that status.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:50pm

For example, if the President were to propose a top income bracket of 95% and someone who fell into that bracket said "I'm losing my freedom to do what I want to with my money" isn't what he's saying factually accurate?

The people who are saying this are nowhere near that tax bracket and in fact wouldn't complain (in part because they know full well how to hide their money legally). Similarly, the people who complained about MLK Jr. being a Communist weren't by and large the wealthy who, for the most part, feel pretty secure in their status. It's those of lesser means who feel threatened because they're more aware of that status.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:53pm

But, if one examines the incremental steps toward government centralization and ownership, then Obama is at best a gradualist on the trajectory towards socialism.

This is where the logic falls apart. Our political culture is actually pretty anti-socialist because of the very construction of our system (including more layers of government than anywhere else in the world).

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:54pm

LIberty is not license, and is thus inherently self-limiting. Polluters are trespassing upon the property rights of others, and thus are acting in such a way contrary to the wishes of those upon whom they trespass. This may or may not be "violent," but it is nonetheless a trespass. The 'force' upon them is not a trespass upon them, but retribution for their trespass upon another. Likewise in any other situation where somebody's "freedom" harms another... that is not truly freedom, because somebody's freedom was trespassed upon.

I think in principle we agree, but I didn't make any statements about what happens when property is trespassed upon. Folks like Deacon believe this is fine because it socializes their preferences because they are unwilling to bear the costs of negotiating with others peacefully. So they need the power of the sword.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:55pm

It doesn't matter whether or not they are near the tax bracket. He was making a point about factuality versus your projection upon somebody's values and motives.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:55pm

LIberty is not license, and is thus inherently self-limiting.

Without transcendent principles (sometime known as law), the two can become synonymous.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 4:55pm

LIberty is not license, and is thus inherently self-limiting.

Without transcendent principles (sometime known as law), the two can become synonymous.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:59pm

Sam, you must not know Deacon very well. He's the all-knowing, all-discerning heart knower. He knows the thoughts, motives, and attitudes of everybody. He even knows the numbers of the hairs on their heads!

BlueDeacon is intuitive, and can discern motives to a point. He's not inaccurate on everything, even about somebody's attitudes and motives, but is very pompous with his "gift" of discernment, using it to bludgeon everybody with his arrogance.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 4:59pm

Sam, you must not know Deacon very well. He's the all-knowing, all-discerning heart knower. He knows the thoughts, motives, and attitudes of everybody. He even knows the numbers of the hairs on their heads!

BlueDeacon is intuitive, and can discern motives to a point. He's not inaccurate on everything, even about somebody's attitudes and motives, but is very pompous with his "gift" of discernment, using it to bludgeon everybody with his arrogance.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:00pm

I'm not speaking legally, but ethically. If everybody is, in actuality, free, nobody has the license to aggress or trespass upon another because it would be violating their freedom.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:00pm

I'm not speaking legally, but ethically. If everybody is, in actuality, free, nobody has the license to aggress or trespass upon another because it would be violating their freedom.

by: Josh_Rowley

02-05-2010 @ 5:09pm

I agree with you that Jesus was nonviolent. But your definition of violence is so broad that it makes nonviolence impossible.

Certainly, though, the state (whether the U.S. government or any other government) uses coercion. The state is by nature coercive. The church, which does not use coercion (in theory, at least), provides an alternative politics to the politics of the state. For example, whereas the church calls people to give of their wealth voluntarily, the states taxes people--and imposes legal penalties on persons who refuse to pay their taxes.

by: Josh_Rowley

02-05-2010 @ 5:09pm

I agree with you that Jesus was nonviolent. But your definition of violence is so broad that it makes nonviolence impossible.

Certainly, though, the state (whether the U.S. government or any other government) uses coercion. The state is by nature coercive. The church, which does not use coercion (in theory, at least), provides an alternative politics to the politics of the state. For example, whereas the church calls people to give of their wealth voluntarily, the states taxes people--and imposes legal penalties on persons who refuse to pay their taxes.

by: adamfnewby

02-05-2010 @ 5:12pm

I don't want to pay taxes for military force. Yet I'm being forced to. So I guess that's immoral.

by: adamfnewby

02-05-2010 @ 5:12pm

I don't want to pay taxes for military force. Yet I'm being forced to. So I guess that's immoral.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 5:18pm

Could you stop projecting your opinions, judgments, and insulting innuendo regarding BlueDeacon, please?

Hardly the stuff of civil discourse.

I'm not interested in having a discussion with you if you insist on continuing these sorts of pronouncements.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 5:21pm

I'm so happy to see you admit that the previous Republican majority in Congress stole from us! There's hope, after all :)!

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 5:30pm

On the contrary -- it matters a lot. Historically, the people who have complained the most about "taking from the rich to give to the poor" are those who don't see themselves as "rich"; for example, "white flight" from the cities in the 1950s through the '70s did not take place among the wealthy. It's one thing to propose hypotheticals, but not when they square with what actually happens.

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 5:35pm

In a perfect world that would be correct; however, you keep ignoring a primary issue: Sin. (You're tired of my saying that, I know, but it's not going away.)

by: BlueDeacon

02-05-2010 @ 5:41pm

However, Jesus did resort to "verbal violence" more than once (any any psychologist knows that it can be worse) and occasionally made statements that could be taken as personal insults.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:57pm

Sin is precisely the reason I espouse what I do.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:57pm

haha... yes!

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:57pm

haha... yes!

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:58pm

Only if you insist that BlueDeacon stops projecting about the values, motives, and attitudes of others, which was precisely my complaint. It is not uncivilized because it is calling an uncivilized form of discourse (his projecting) onto others. I'm merely pointing it out.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:58pm

Only if you insist that BlueDeacon stops projecting about the values, motives, and attitudes of others, which was precisely my complaint. It is not uncivilized because it is calling an uncivilized form of discourse (his projecting) onto others. I'm merely pointing it out.

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:59pm

So what's your point? That you're okay being forced (at gunpoint) to pay taxes so that a military can use guns and weapons and bombs to kill innocent civilians?

by: xfree9

02-05-2010 @ 5:59pm

So what's your point? That you're okay being forced (at gunpoint) to pay taxes so that a military can use guns and weapons and bombs to kill innocent civilians?

by: ckgmail

02-05-2010 @ 6:06pm

Yeah. See Matthew 23.

by: ckgmail

02-05-2010 @ 6:06pm

Yeah. See Matthew 23.

by: Ngchen

02-05-2010 @ 6:36pm

So is your point that ANY AND ALL GOVERNMENT IS IMMORAL? Since by definition, government has to coerce at least some people.

Recall what Jesus said about governing authorities, not to mention practicalities such as standards and so forth, and one will readily see that at least some government is necessary and good. Can government be too big and controlling? Most certainly, and we should watch out for that.