Socialism leads to Atheism?

[stu]

Quote from jem:

What is strange is how atheists ignore history...

here a quote I found on the internet that restates what I have been saying to you Stu for years... although I make a stronger conclusion... The protestant reformation... contributed heavily to the founding of the US and the idea of liberty embodied by the US founders in the U.S. Constitution.
http://personal-pages.lvc.edu/robbins/ReformationandModernity.htm
How did the Reformation contribute to the Shaping of the Modern World?

Like the Renaissance, the Reformation drew its inspiration from the ancient world. Renaissance humanists and artists sought to imitate and revive classical art and literary forms; Reformation thinkers aspired to restore the spiritual purity of early Christianity, before the growth of a powerful clergy and a dogmatic theology. They used the Gospels in order to undermine the authority of the Church. Yet, in several important ways, the Reformation also contributed to the shaping of modernity:


1. By dividing Christendom into Catholic and Protestant, the Reformation destroyed the religious unity of Europe, the distinguishing feature of the Middle Ages, and weakened the Church, the chief institution of medieval society.

2. By strengthening monarchs at the expense of church bodies, the Reformation furthered the growth of the modern secular and centralized state.

3. While absolute monarchy was the immediate beneficiary of the Reformation, indirectly Protestantism contributed to the growth of political liberty – another feature of the modern West. Protestantism accomplished this by providing religious justification for revolution against tyrannical rule.

4. The Reformation advanced the idea of equality. For instance, M. Luther held that there was no spiritual distinction between the laity and clergy. There was a spiritual equality of all believers: all were equally Christian; all were equally priests (the priesthood of believers)

5. The Reformation contributed to the creation of an individualistic ethic. Protestants insisted on the individual’s rights and responsibilities to interpret Scripture according to the dictates of his or her conscience. Piety, therefore, was not determined by the Church, but by the autonomous individual, whose conscience, illuminated by God, was the source of judgment and authority.

6. The Reformation’s stress on individual conscience may have contributed to the development of the capitalist spirit, which underlies modern economic life.

The <strike>protestant reformation</strike> growth of the modern secular state ... was the main contribution to the founding of the US.

Roman Catholic Church tied Church and State together. Ultimate socialism where everyone jointly and severally belonged to God and State.

16th century religious infighting ends with a Reformation. Who's surprised religious socialism is so unbearable?
So they bring in some secularism, to deal with religious state control.

They called themselves Protestants, but could just as well have called themselves, say, Libertarians, achieving one extra freedom while they were at it. Not enslaving thought to an imaginary sky tyrant.

Freedom came despite religion not because of it.

 

[stu]

Quote from fundjunkie:

......

I do find it remarkably consistent how posters on these boards blatantly demonstrate complete ignorance of socialism (and liberalism too). Note that I am neither socialist nor communist (or a liberal for that matter). But surely to be able to comment on a subject one should first command a passing understanding of what it actually is first?

I must confess that these, so often repeated, demostrations of gross ignorance and irrational prejudice do become wearing after a while. And while I've made these remarks in relation to the quote above this is certainly not the worst offender.

Thx
D

Could you please explain how your statement ... "Socialism is indeed faithless, ".... isn't falling into your own description of an ignorance of socialism?

I'm referring to the well established Christian Socialism movement?

I'm enquiring as you also remarked...." But surely to be able to comment on a subject one should first command a passing understanding of what it actually is first?"

 

[fundjunkie]

Quote from stu:

Could you please explain how your statement ... "Socialism is indeed faithless, ".... isn't falling into your own description of an ignorance of socialism?

It is, if that's how you choose to interpret it. If you consider the text of the original post then it should be clear that the context of the phrase "Socialism is indeed faithless" refers to its not "requiring faith".

Quote from stu:

I'm enquiring as you also remarked...." But surely to be able to comment on a subject one should first command a passing understanding of what it actually is first?"

Since I'm not throwing around wildy inaccurate assertions regarding socialism, socialists, liberalism or liberals I would suggest that hat cannot possibly fit. On the other hand I do feel a need to point out that most of what has been said is nonsense of the highest order given that it seems to have been silently accepted as part of the ongoing debate.


Thx
D

 

[Ricter]

Quote from fundjunkie:

Please explain how a "well run car insurance operation" is socialist?

An interesting question. Some (brief) thoughts...

The central planners are the actuaries. (Ugh, that's scary.)
"Well run" would have to include, among other things, "voluntary buy in", and "sustainability".
"From each according to his abilities" would be represented by mandatory premium payments.
"To each according to his needs" would be represented by mandatory claim payments.
The problem of freeriders would appear in cases where an individual's premiums are not keeping pace with the individual's claims.
Another problem of "freeriderism" is not individualistic, as above, but systemic. Eg., I occasionally act recklessly (I gamble) because I know the claim payments are mandatory. But if everyone "occasionally" acts recklessly, then we'd have quite a bit of reckless behavior at any given time.
An insurance company raises individual premiums to eliminate freeriders, how would a socialistic society "raise premiums"?

 

[stu]

Quote from fundjunkie:

It is, if that's how you choose to interpret it. If you consider the text of the original post then it should be clear that the context of the phrase "Socialism is indeed faithless" refers to its not "requiring faith".

Since I'm not throwing around wildy inaccurate assertions regarding socialism, socialists, liberalism or liberals I would suggest that hat cannot possibly fit. On the other hand I do feel a need to point out that most of what has been said is nonsense of the highest order given that it seems to have been silently accepted as part of the ongoing debate.

Thx
D

Right so as to be clear then, by saying (your words) "Socialism is indeed faithless, "... is what you you mean to say, Socialism is indeed faithless except when it is indeed not faithless, as is the case with religious socialism .

Is that correct.
If so could you please explain how what you stated isn't nonsense too?

 

[omegapoint]

Had a professional painter over to a condo I owned and got to talking. I asked what he was getting for this job, an insurance
funded job due to some water damage, he told me he gets a
thousand dollars for a living room, and I don't mean Trumps living room. Alot of people do their own painting, me for one, and if
it weren't for the cushion being paid by insurance provides as opposed to the sticker shock anyone would get from that price quote, insurance probably overpays ...alot. Socialism? Buffers, like securitization and insurance, send the accountability buck off into an increasingly harder to define distance.

 

[Mav88]

Please explain how a "well run car insurance operation" is socialist? I want to see how far off beam your (mis)understanding of socialism actually is. I don't expect a reply but will respect any attempt at contriving an answer.

I do find it remarkably consistent how posters on these boards blatantly demonstrate complete ignorance of socialism (and liberalism too). Note that I am neither socialist nor communist (or a liberal for that matter). But surely to be able to comment on a subject one should first command a passing understanding of what it actually is first?

I must confess that these, so often repeated, demostrations of gross ignorance and irrational prejudice do become wearing after a while. And while I've made these remarks in relation to the quote above this is certainly not the worst offender.

Thx
D

First off you should not pretend a definition exists, because it doesn't. But then I didn't define it either so I'll try it now.

Socialistic programs are any economic endeavor, run by a central authority, which legally ties in large numbers of people so that presumably the advantages of risk pooling and teamwork give an outcome or condition that benefits all or most in a way that is not obtainable by individuals.

Car insurance is disciplined market based risk pooling, it seems to work pretty good. Coastal flood insurance ( a la New Orleans) is undisciplined risk pooling, it sucks since it puts most of us on the hook without punishing the risky behaviors of a few.

Social Security could be ok if the money was actually invested, Medicare and Medicaid are terrible socialistic programs.

Discipline and people experiencing consequences of bad actions, it's what makes the biggest socialistic team of all, the military, work. In my opinion it is required for socialism to be succesful. Liberal say that such things are mean spirited, racist, ...(fill in the cliche). That's where the humanist religion of the left comes in.

Non of it has anything to do with atheism and there are a hell of a lot of things that work better without forced teamwork and risk pooling.

 

[fundjunkie]

Quote from stu:

Right so as to be clear then, by saying (your words) "Socialism is indeed faithless, "... is what you you mean to say, Socialism is indeed faithless except when it is indeed not faithless, as is the case with religious socialism .

Is that correct.
If so could you please explain how what you stated isn't nonsense too?

It would be helpful if you would take the time to read what I say rather than seeing what you want to see.

You will see that I said, paraphrasing, that socialism does not "require" faith. In that sense it is faithless. I don't think I'll need to say any more though I suspect I may have to.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from fundjunkie:

It would be helpful if you would take the time to read what I say rather than seeing what you want to see...

Stu? Surely you're not serious.

 

[fundjunkie]

Quote from Mav88:

First off you should not pretend a definition exists, because it doesn't. But then I didn't define it either so I'll try it now.

I believe it does. But in America the term has been warped, for political reasons, to mean things that it is not. Socialism is both a political and economic framework and to be discussed in its proper context should be looked at on a national scale. Communism is arguably the extreme expression of Socialism and fails far more dramatically, IMO, for the same reasons as Socialism.

Quote from Mav88:
Socialistic programs are any economic endeavor, run by a central authority, which legally ties in large numbers of people so that presumably the advantages of risk pooling and teamwork give an outcome or condition that benefits all or most in a way that is not obtainable by individuals.
[/B]

The driving force of solcialism as I understand it is not risk avoidance. It is about wealth redistrbituion so that the disparities between the "haves" and the "have nots" is not so extreme so as to undermine the credibility of society's claim to be civilized. the term most often used for this is to put the means of production in the hands of the people (common/public ownership).

Quote from Mav88:
Social Security could be ok if the money was actually invested, Medicare and Medicaid are terrible socialistic programs.
[/B]

I think I see what you might be trying to say. In my view medicaid and Medicare are not an example of socialism at work. Why? The mean of production, in this case healthcare, are privately owned and delivered. They are social programs but they are not socialist.

My own preference is for social programs vs nationalization of strategic services (like health). The devil is in the detail though and the system in the US seems primarily designed to line the pockets of the health providers rather than truely serving the public at large. That's the impression I get. I don't live in the US so may be getting the wrong impression.

Thx
D