Comments on: China Isn’t Socialist

By: Bald Man

Bald Man — Sun, 28 May 2006 14:51:56 +0000

There should never be a time when a person with a strong church should ever find himself/herself in need for a life necessity.

Well said!

By: Rantz Grotto

Rantz Grotto — Thu, 25 May 2006 18:14:04 +0000

I would say that one of my biggest turnoffs to Christianity is the greed and selfishness that I see in it all the time. When a church can have enough money to create HUGE statues (Touchdown Jesus) or churches with expandable walls or, and this is my MOST hated, chopping down trees to build on undeveloped land when there is PLENTY of unused developed land, then I start thinking that churches are not out for the betterment of mankind. To me, a TRUE Christian church (as I understand the ideas of Jesus, which is poorly) can be nothing BUT socialist. There should never be a time when a person with a strong church should ever find himself/herself in need for a life necessity. I know that many churches have various levels of giving they do, but all that giving should be without wanting in return, and very few give in that way.

I could go on about this subject for days. (Hey maybe I should put it in my own blog!) I’ll cut myself off here. But I do like the turn in the topic…

By: Bald Man

Bald Man — Sun, 21 May 2006 19:10:45 +0000

I’d agree with your impression of US Soviet-socialist associations, and I suspect the rightward movement of European socialism relates directly to the outcome of the Cold War.

As for finding Christian socialists, from what I’ve gathered your best bet of the last fifty years has been fringe movements: communes, “Jesus freaks,” etc. Mainstream Christianity has in large part been co-opted by or sold out to consumerism.

By: Andrew B

Andrew B — Sun, 21 May 2006 06:38:35 +0000

So where do we find “Christian socialists” these days? My impression is that the socialist movement in the US has yet to recover from the McCarthy period and in Europe most of the classic socialist parties (like Tony Blair’s Labour Party in the UK) have moved to the right along the political spectrum.

By: Bald Man

Bald Man — Sat, 20 May 2006 19:39:46 +0000

Here’s where I must be misunderstanding things. I would have called Marx a socialist, but not a communist… which is odd since Marx wrote “The Communist Manifesto.” It’s been a while since I picked it up, but my memory is that he believed the socialist revolution would occur when the poor rose up and seized power from the capitalists, the factory owners and like. (Remember he was writing at the peak of the Industrial Revolution.) Society would then be run via altruism or anarchy or something.

The communist twist – via Lenin et al – was a strong state to enforce the socialist ideal: “To each according to need; from each according to ability.”

I’ve probably got something wrong in there. Should have paid more attention in sociology class.

Anyway, working from the original definition of communism, I’d agree with you. Using my definitions, I’d say we ought to be “Christian socialists” vs. “Christian consumerists,” as most of us in the West are. The ideal of socialism (Marx’s communism) certainly seems encompassed by Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom.

By: Andrew B

Andrew B — Sat, 20 May 2006 19:02:06 +0000

Yes, that’s probably the case. So if we use the originally intended definition of ‘communism’ we may get close to the idea that the ideal communist society is similar to the early church community described in Acts 4:32-35.

EXCEPT, that (as far as I am aware) Marx thought it could be achieved out of altruism or common sense care for our neighbours and fellow men. Whereas in Acts it is clear it took the sacrfice of Jesus, His resurrection and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost to achieve it.

Does this mean that Christians should be socialist or communist in their approach to politics and economics?

By: Bald Man

Bald Man — Sat, 20 May 2006 18:30:49 +0000

I think we’re saying the same thing; I’m just muddying the water by using poor or non-standard definitions. What Wikipedia calls communism, I’m calling socialism. What you call “state capitalism,” I would call “communist consumerism.” the state = the “commune.”

By: Andrew B

Andrew B — Sat, 20 May 2006 18:02:53 +0000

Well, I am no expert in this field, but what you are describing looks more like state capitalism. The state controls the means of production and runs things in pursuit of its own interests.

A communist society is a classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production. I don’t think one has ever existed yet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Sure, in China the country is run by a party which has the label ‘communist’. But they are running a dictatorship in the interests of the party, the state and the ruling class. Just because it claims the label ‘communist’ does not actually mean that it is communist.

You see a similar a similar phenomenon in churches. People set up organizations and run them to suit their own ideas and purposes, and put the label ‘church’ or ‘Christian’ on them. Sometimes a few people start wondering why God does not show up more in such organizations.

By: Bald Man

Bald Man — Sat, 20 May 2006 16:47:20 +0000

I’m speculating, but I’d say it’s still communist. The fundamental driving force behind capitalism isn’t the market, but self-interest, individual agents each acting in their own self interest. Communism, and China so far as I can tell, is directed from the top down. Decisions -at least at the macro level – are made by the state in pursuit of the state’s interests. Authority and control are tightly held, so even if individuals don’t buy in, there isn’t much they can do about it.

You’re questions are all good one’s to ask of any economic system.

By: Andrew B

Andrew B — Fri, 19 May 2006 23:03:41 +0000

Well, I thought the Chinese system was state capitalism, rather than communism. How much of is is actually centrally planned now? Especially the high-tech stuff, aren’t those companies operating as part of the global economy – just-in-time supply chain processes and all that?

And where is capitalism going to get us in the next 50 years? Where are the good examples of capitalist countries where the gap between rich and poor is narrowing rather than widening? Where have we achieved systems which do not force a significant section of the population into poverty? How can you count the US system a success with 40 million people without health care cover and a minimum wage which is too low to enable you to pay your rent?

Just a few additional questions for the quick qwizz?

Greetings,
(from capitalist Europe)