He probably would be called A-political but I can tell you he fed the hungry and healed the sick , all with $00.00 compensation so he is definitely (NOT) a Capitalist and would be all about taking care of sick, poor , hungry , from other countries , from here , the lazy and any one else
[/quote]
He did those things entirely through the free market. Actually charity is not even possible in a socialist state. Individuals must have things in order to be able to give of themselves.
And who are you referring to as taking care of the lazy? Which passage did you gleam that nugget from?
Jesus actually put huge demands on those he helped. He commands everyone, including the poor, to do all they can for others. “go and be perfect”.
It never ceases to amaze me that some people are so incapable of action themselves that they think the government is the only way to make someone else do it. You completely ignore the fact that most hospitals est. were founded through the free market by large private entities like the Catholic church.
People today are so diluted they don’t even reflect anymore that they could actually walk out their front door and go help someone. Like they can’t even comprehend the possibility.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Jesus was a Marxist , before Marx the OM[/quote]
Do share.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Actually, an ideal Christian society would be a monarchy with God as king as was the original attempt with Israel. But really Jesus was entirely A-political. They tried trapping him with political questions a number of times and he basically brushed aside all the politics as unimportant. And even all that aside, Jesus would be non-violent and believed in aid through private charity which is VERY non-marxist.[/quote]
Naa jesus wasn’t marxist,he even said"the poor would always be among you" and it was our duty to take care of them. Jesus was definitely apolitical,and his major concern was the spiritual side of man,but never did he diminish the place of hard work,and earning a living,he just wanted people to put less emphasis on material things and seek the kingdom.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally am pro success but Christ on the other hand was anti wealth.
If you listen to today’s mega churches they equate Success with Christ like[/quote]
There are too many bad assumptions in this statement. He was not anti-wealth. Wealth <> Money. Success <> wealth. Christ was pretty dang successful.[/quote]
lol even had a money keeper in charge of the purse ,what we would call an accountant today
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Pope Francis on Friday renewed his call on global leaders to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
[/quote]
That’s not really what Marxism, in theory and according to the Communist Manifesto, was about. A more appropriate label would be that of the Pope making a democratic socialist statement, of which theoretical communism, as Marx and Engels envisioned it, is the purest form or ideal type.
The line you quoted from the Pope actually refutes your premise, because in the Manifesto itself, Marx opines that the state is also the enemy against pure socialism and he saw no role for it beyond initially getting the ball rolling in initiating central planning (e.g., total confiscation of land/labor/capital and organization of communal ownership of said factors of production - this goes beyond wealth and financial assets), after which the state fades away. Marx distrusted the state, as he did organized labor. He felt that the proletariat must unite in a revolution of the workers and overthrow the bourgeoisie model of private ownership of ALL of the factors of production, yielding a landless, classless social utopia. What the pope is calling for is not inherently Marxist per se, because it lacks the most fundamental and basic tenets of the true implementation of communism, nor would Marx have envisioned a leadership role for the Pope himself, let alone the state. Redistribution of wealth via more egalitarian taxation was way too soft for Marx - he wanted revolutionary change.
Sure, you can say this a play on words, but from a political science standpoint, there is a very clear distinction. It’s as mistaken as calling an authoritarian government or unpopular law “communist.” Communism is an economic philosophy of sorts, not a political system per se.
I have to laugh , Jesus was a Socialist , there is no other way to slice it , he never required a drug test , never required the person look for a job, never required payment . And you say he could not do this with out capital Fucking Amusing . And I am not even a Bible thumper
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to laugh , Jesus was a Socialist , there is no other way to slice it , he never required a drug test , never required the person look for a job, never required payment . And you say he could not do this with out capital Fucking Amusing . And I am not even a Bible thumper[/quote]
There were a number of different refutations of your assertion, nor does this post even attempt to refute the one you singled out.
I’m not even sure what you could have smoked to leap from capitalism/socialism to drug testing and other nonsense. You can not drug test in capitalism and drug test in socialism. In socialism you can force drug testing, in a free market, you can’t. But WTF are you even talking about?
And he does/did most certainly require payment. But that was already noted and you ignored it.
As for jobs, capitalism is the only way you are free to not have to work. Marx demanded “from each according to his ability”. Socialism is THE system that forces you to work for others. That’s like the whole point of it. But again, this has nothing to do with the subject.
You need to quit smoking whatever it is you got ahold of, or if you aren’t currently high it’s probably too late and there aren’t enough brain cells left.
I know where his fiscal policies are . They are the heart of Communism with strong Socialist tendencies . He knew there were Capitalists and he rejected their ways at every turn. He told his disciples to quit their jobs and follow him , with out pay imagine that
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I know where his fiscal policies are . They are the heart of Communism with strong Socialist tendencies . He knew there were Capitalists and he rejected their ways at every turn. He told his disciples to quit their jobs and follow him , with out pay imagine that [/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I know where his fiscal policies are . They are the heart of Communism with strong Socialist tendencies . He knew there were Capitalists and he rejected their ways at every turn. He told his disciples to quit their jobs and follow him , with out pay imagine that [/quote]
I think you’re misapplying a few quotes or otherwise taking them out of context. Christ was apolitical. There’s really nothing in his ministry that speaks to an earthly structure of social ownership of the means of production, progressive taxation via state fiat, or strong government regulation of the economy with stipulations for various social safety nets.
Christ’s ministry was based on the notion that one can’t really live in the world and serve him - i.e., serving both God and mammon is not synchronously plausible. He wanted his disciples to be fully dedicated to the mission of spreading the Gospel, which he opined was the most crucial aspect of one’s life, since this one will come to pass and is temporary. I think everyone can agree that Christ taught against becoming attached to material possessions and being greedy, but no serious Bible scholars ever argue that the true intent of Christ was for all of his believers to live in poverty or go without any possessions either - again, this is a misinterpretation of the “sell all your possessions…” quote from the Bible.
Yes, followers are personally commanded to do for those without, in the name of the Gospel. However, although a universally accepted definition does not exist, political science savants tend to agree that “socialism” is an economic and political philosophy that involves various facets of state (government) involvement, namely exercising some degree of control over the means of production (land/labor/capital), oftentimes some degree of economic planning, almost always a provision of social safety nets, and/or egalitarian distribution of wealth via progressive taxation. There is nothing in Jesus’ ministry that stressed the importance of any of this, and his individual commandments to do for the less fortunate, sick, etc. were individual commandments for leading a Christ-centered life, NOT a political thesis on how government should be organized or operated.
I think you’re misapplying a few quotes or otherwise taking them out of context. [/quote]
Possibly but in my defense no more than any one claiming success is God’s reward for being holy.
Or that we should not feed the poor or heal the sick even if they can not afford it .The concept of doing so in a Capitalistic Society is Socialistic
[/quote]
No. If giving to charity makes one a socialist, republicans are more socialist than dems. Bush and such are socialist and obama really isn’t. I believe the government should do very little to nothing for anyone, and you are calling me socialist. Charity <> government action. Charity is private industry acting freely, that’s capitalism with personal conscience.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Possibly but in my defense no more than any one claiming success is God’s reward for being holy.
Or that we should not feed the poor or heal the sick even if they can not afford it .The concept of doing so in a Capitalistic Society is Socialistic
[/quote]
I would disagree wholeheartedly with that. Giving to charity or helping the less fortunate, on an individual or corporate level, is not socialist. Socialism involves, as I explained, certain facets of government organization.
I am not, however, arguing that Christ was a capitalist either. He was apolitical and preached no particular economic orthodoxy, so anyone trying to make an argument as such is stretching it to a significant degree.
I think you’re misapplying a few quotes or otherwise taking them out of context. [/quote]
Possibly but in my defense no more than any one claiming success is God’s reward for being holy.
Or that we should not feed the poor or heal the sick even if they can not afford it .The concept of doing so in a Capitalistic Society is Socialistic
[/quote]
No. If giving to charity makes one a socialist, republicans are more socialist than dems. Bush and such are socialist and obama really isn’t. I believe the government should do very little to nothing for anyone, and you are calling me socialist. Charity <> government action. Charity is private industry acting freely, that’s capitalism with personal conscience. [/quote]
I did not say Charity . WE at present do not even have close to the amount of CHARITY required to take care of America let alone the World.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Possibly but in my defense no more than any one claiming success is God’s reward for being holy.
Or that we should not feed the poor or heal the sick even if they can not afford it .The concept of doing so in a Capitalistic Society is Socialistic
[/quote]
I would disagree wholeheartedly with that. Giving to charity or helping the less fortunate, on an individual or corporate level, is not socialist. Socialism involves, as I explained, certain facets of government organization.
I am not, however, arguing that Christ was a capitalist either. He was apolitical and preached no particular economic orthodoxy, so anyone trying to make an argument as such is stretching it to a significant degree.
[/quote]
Again , I did not say charity , I am talking about feeding all the hungry healing all the sick , does charitable contributions even come close to %1 of what would be required ?
I think you’re misapplying a few quotes or otherwise taking them out of context. [/quote]
Possibly but in my defense no more than any one claiming success is God’s reward for being holy.
Or that we should not feed the poor or heal the sick even if they can not afford it .The concept of doing so in a Capitalistic Society is Socialistic
[/quote]
No. If giving to charity makes one a socialist, republicans are more socialist than dems. Bush and such are socialist and obama really isn’t. I believe the government should do very little to nothing for anyone, and you are calling me socialist. Charity <> government action. Charity is private industry acting freely, that’s capitalism with personal conscience. [/quote]
I did not say Charity . WE at present do not even have close to the amount of CHARITY required to take care of America let alone the World.
[/quote]
Okay, I can’t even imagine how those dots are connecting in your mind. Jesus preached charity (what you’ve been claiming is socialist). And how does having or not having enough in America have something to do with what he stood for?
Again , I did not say charity , I am talking about feeding all the hungry healing all the sick , does charitable contributions even come close to %1 of what would be required ?
[/quote]
Jesus actually said that the poor would never be fully taken care of.
But you are now claiming that Jesus didn’t preach charity?
the OM[/quote]