Let me throw some quotes from Ludwig von Mises taken from his book Socialism out here. Taken from this site http://www.econlib.org/Library/Mises/msS6…Part%20II,Ch.15
First the definition,
The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is Socialism. All other definitions are misleading.
Here is a rather lengthy passage on Christian Socialism,
A theocratic organization of the state demands either a self-sufficing family economy or the socialist organization of industry. It is incompatible with an economic order which allows the individual free play to develop his powers. Simple faith and economic rationalism cannot dwell together. It is unthinkable that priests should govern entrepreneurs.
Christian Socialism, as it has taken root in the last few decades among countless followers of all Christian churches, is merely a variety of State Socialism. State Socialism and Christian Socialism are so entangled that it is difficult to draw any clear line between them, or to say of individual socialists whether they belong to the one or the other. Even more than etatism, Christian Socialism is governed by the idea that the economic system would be perfectly stationary if the desire for profit and personal gain by men directing their efforts solely to the satisfaction of material interests did not disturb its smooth course. The advantage of progressive improvements in methods of production is admitted, if only with limitations; but the Christian socialist does not clearly understand that it is just these innovations which disturb the peaceful course of the economic system. In so far as this is recognized, the existing state of affairs is preferred to any further progress. Agriculture and handicraft, with perhaps small shopkeeping, are the only admissible occupations. Trade and speculation are superfluous, injurious, and evil. Factories and large scale industries are a wicked invention of the “Jewish spirit”; they produce only bad goods which are foisted on buyers by the large stores and by other monstrosities of modern trade to the detriment of purchasers. It is the duty of legislation to suppress these excesses of the business spirit and to restore to handicraft the place in production from which it has been displaced by the machinations of big capital.*35 Large transport undertakings that cannot be abolished should be nationalized.
The basic idea of Christian Socialism that runs through all the teachings of its representatives is purely stationary in outlook. In the economic system which they have in mind there is no entrepreneur, no speculation, and no “inordinate” profit. The prices and wages demanded and given are “just.” Everyone is satisfied with his lot because dissatisfaction would signify rebellion against divine and human laws. For those incapable of work Christian charity will provide. This ideal it is asserted was achieved in medieval times. Only unbelief could have driven mankind out of this paradise. If it is to be regained mankind must first find the way back to the Church. Enlightenment and liberal thought have created all the evil which afflicts the world today.
The protagonists of Christian social reform as a rule do not regard their ideal Society of Christian Socialism as in any way socialistic. But this is simply self-deception. Christian Socialism appears to be conservative because it desires to maintain the existing order of property, or more properly it appears reactionary because it wishes to restore and then maintain an order of property that prevailed in the past. It is also true that it combats with great energy the plans of socialists of other persuasions for a radical abolition of private property, and in contradistinction to them asserts that not Socialism but social reform is its aim. But Conservatism can only be achieved by Socialism. Where private property in the means of production exists not only in name but in fact, income cannot be distributed according to an historically determined or an any other way permanently established order. Where private property exists, only market prices can determine the formation of income. To the degree in which this is realized, the Christian social reformer is step by step driven to Socialism, which for him can be only State Socialism. He must see that otherwise there cannot be that complete adherence to the traditional state of affairs which his ideal demands. He sees that fixed prices and wages cannot be maintained, unless deviations from them are menaced by threats of punishment from a supreme authority. He must also realize that wages and prices cannot be arbitrarily determined according to the ideas of a world improver, because every deviation from market prices destroys the equilibrium of economic life. He must therefore progressively move from a demand for price regulation to a demand for a supreme control over production and distribution. It is the same path that practical etatism has followed. At the end in both cases, is a rigid Socialism which leaves private property only in name, and in fact transfers all control over the means of production to the State.
Only a part of the Christian socialist movement has openly subscribed to this radical programme. The others have shunned an open declaration. They have anxiously avoided drawing the logical conclusions of their premises. They give one to understand that they are combating only the excrescences and abuses of the capitalist order; they protest that they have not the slightest desire to abolish private property; and they constantly emphasize their opposition to Marxian Socialism. But they characteristically perceive that this opposition mainly consists in differences of opinion as to the way in which the best state of society can be attained. They are not revolutionary and expect everything from an increasing realization that reform is necessary. For the rest they constantly proclaim that they do no wish to attack private property. But what they would retain is only the name of private property. If the control of private property is transferred to the State the property owner is only an official, a deputy of the economic administration.
It can be seen at once how the Christian Socialism of today corresponds to the economic ideal of the medieval Scholastics. The starting point, the demand for “just” wages and prices, that is, for a definite historically attained distribution of income, is common to both. Only the realization that this is impossible, if the economic system retains private property in the means of production, forces the modern Christian reform movement towards Socialism. In order to achieve their demands, they must advocate measures which, even if formally retaining private property, lead to the complete socialization of society.
It will be shown later that this modern Christian Socialism has nothing to do with the suppositious but often cited Communism of the Early Christians. The socialist idea is new to the Church. This is not altered by the fact that the most recent development of Christian social theory has led the Church*36 to recognize the fundamental rightfulness of private property in the means of production, whereas the early church teaching, in view of the command of the gospels condemning all economic activity, had avoided unconditionally accepting even the name of private property. For we must understand what the Church has done in recognizing the rightfulness of private property, only as opposition to the efforts of the socialists to overthrow the existing order forcibly. In reality the Church desires nothing but State Socialism of a particular colour.
The nature of socialistic methods of production is independent of the concrete methods involved in the attempt to realize it. Every attempt at Socialism, however brought about, must founder on the impracticability of setting up a purely socialistic economy. For that reason, and not because of deficiencies in the moral character of mankind, Socialism must fail.
It may be granted, that the moral qualities required of the members of a socialist community could best be fostered by the Church. The spirit which must prevail in a socialist community is most akin to that of a religious community. But to overcome the difficulties in the way of establishing a socialist community would require a change in human nature or in the laws of the nature by which we are surrounded, and even faith cannot bring this to pass.
It’s very rare that you see Republicans actually advocate Capitalism and when they do it’s not the kind Objectivists are talking about. They basically argue for the status quo, and the mixed economy. They are “pro-business” not “pro-capitalist” and as the Objective Standard showed in the essay, The Rise and Fall of American Conserativism, the only reason they oppose the Democrats ideas is so they can change them and implement them later. Do the American voters and taxpayers realize this? No, the pratically worship “Dubya” because he’s a Christian. Alot of people only vote Republican because they represent “Christian values” which are in themselves totally subjective.
Fletch and I seem to have totally different experiences with Christians. Most of the Christians i’ve encountered have been the most irrational and immoral people i’ve ever met. I live in the Bible Belt, which is regarded as a place with a highly dense population of Christian people. Yet, with all these Christians all I see is that they back down on all their own self-proclaimed values and virtues. They say love thy neighbor, yet they don’t give a shit about anyone else around them and will indirectly harm anyone without even thinking about it. It’s one thing to be selfish. It’s another to proclaim selflessness and helping others as an ultimate value and behave just the opposite. It’s one thing to value worldy possessions, it’s another to say your in a religion that denounces worldy values and turn around and value these worldy possessions above anyone and anything.
Christians are totally selfless in the sense Howard Roark explained it. The Christians here will never, never think for themselves on issues. They live in the eyes of everyone else around and derive their morality from them. They can live as hedonistic as they want because God will “forgive” them and we mortals are not allowed to judge each other. How is this not subjective? How is this not an evasion of reality? Isn’t that the ulimate evil?
They would not be a problem if it weren’t for the fact that they get their political philosophy the same way they get their fashion sense and their aestistics – from whatever the majority of people around them are doing. Other Christians vote for Republicans, so they do too. Now imagine the power that gives to the Republicans! A mass of millions of mindless people who will eat, regurgitate, and eat everything they are feed by other people who they decided to leave their thinking too. If Fox News tells them that illegal aliens are a threat to them they will buy into with a second thought. Plus it feeds into their perjudices already. Alot of Christians here are extremely racist, so if you give them some kind of excuse to hate someone they already do, their going to eat it up. I’ll reiterate, these people don’t need to have power over other people.
Yet, their altruism makes it their finally goal even if they aren’t aware of it. Where are all put on earth to serve God, and who better to do decide how we should serve God then priests and politicians? I don’t have the official figures but I get the feeling that the majority of Christians don’t believe in the seperation of Church and State, want the Bible taught in public school, and want faith-based iniatives to handle all the welfare program (not abolishing it).
I don’t think they care about the right of other people. Look at how they view gay people, or woman who want abortions, or atheists.
Taken from FSTDT.com –
I honestly don’t care about your rights. If it were up to me, all Atheists would be burnt at the stake and or cast into a river with weights tied to their ankles and or placed before the firing squad, etc etc etc."
If everyone thought like this guy, and voted on it, everyone on this forum would be killed; even though we are all pro-capitalist. Granted it’s extreme, but Nazism was extreme and that caught on fast. Which brings us to our next point: Christians only have a problem with communism and Socialism because it’s “Godless” the idea of giving needy people someone elses property doesn’t bother them. In fact, the Bible says to do just that.
If George Bush said the same things Hillary said they wouldn’t have a problem with it, because a Christian-Republican said it. That’s method of political judgement the average Christian voter prefers. Don’t think about the issue, just do whatever Christians say too do.
That’s dangerous. Socialism is dangerous, but the Democrats will blunder it up and it will fail because it has to fail. I don’t see Christianity going away anytime soon, or without a long bloody fight.
You can’t reason with them beforehand – nor make them feel guilty or learn a lesson afterward.