I know all the rhetoric about socialism as a step in Marx's progression toward his particular vision of the utopian society, one in which capitalism is eventually succeeded by communism. I understand why some folks are willing to use that as a scare tactic to achieve their political ends.
But I also know that socialism, per se, is just an idea. It is not, in and of itself, anything to be afraid of.
Socialism as idea is simply one of many ways to think about how our society will be ordered. As the Random House Dictionary points out, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
We're already socialists, folks.
As communities, we have vested interests, ownership, and control of entities such as our police and fire departments, our public schools, libraries, and recreational facilities. We support and control them together through our political process; are advocates of anti-socialism proposing that we get rid of all of these entities and move them under the control of unregulated capitalists?
I haven't heard too many people-- especially amongst the Tea Party faithful and other fiscal conservatives-- volunteering to give up their Social Security benefits, including the oft-maligned and over-bloated Medicare system. Without a doubt, Social Security has some grave issues that it must face and should be brought under some form of control.
But-- and correct me if I'm wrong here-- it is still a social program, one that is supported by millions of American voters. Strictly speaking, it is socialist! Just exactly what capitalist proposal would take the place of the safety net provided by Social Security, I prithee?
(And, just for clarity's sake, I am not advocating the overthrow of capitalism, per se, either; like socialism, democracy, etc., it is simply one of the options and ideals that we should continue to examine and put into place.)
I don't know. Opposing the terrible "socialist" agenda of President Obama is awfully popular these days, and probably will enable a new herd of political leadership to ride into Washington and assorted state capitals early next year. I'm just wondering what the Republicans and independents who may find themselves in control of the Congress will propose.
I just hope it ain't more of that dadgum socialist garbage...like paying grandmomma's hospital bill because she can't!
"And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of the claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them...For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land and houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would distributed to each as any had need."
ReplyDeleteThe early church was socialist!
I'm with William. Jesus and the disciples themselves were able to live thanks to the charity and "welfare" of other believers. It wasn't like anybody paid then to come teach. (In fact all the disciples gave up their livelihoods to follow Jesus.) They just went and did it and people provided them with food and places to stay.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm getting really tired of the attitude of "I worked hard for my money and because of that I shouldn't have to give it away to anybody else." This is an attitude that many in what we would call "the Christian Conservative right" have. How is that a Christian attitude? Does the Bible not call for us to forsake worldly possessions and store up treasures in heaven and to give to the poor and needy? Yet we try so hard to hang on the what we have "earned." There is nothing wrong with wanting to have enough to take care of yourself and family, but we live in America, those who work, even part-time minimum wage jobs have a lot more than most people in the world. In fact, many unemployed and even homeless Americans are better off than a lot of people in the world because of the social systems we have set up to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. And sure there are many people who take advantage of the system but that doesn't mean there aren't others who really need the help and really can't take care of themselves. Maybe the system should be a little more regulated so that those who abuse it aren't taking away from those that truly need help. But I suppose the idea of more regulation is too socialist as well.
And here a sidenote: Jesus's disciples were all capable of earning a living but they knew that they had more important work to do. Yet I don't hear anybody accusing the disciples of taking advantage of the system. Rather we admire and praise the disciples for being willing to give up their worldly possession to go out and help those in need.
I don't think the so called "socialist agenda" of Obama and his supporters is the problem.
I think the problem is that if we are the "Christian nation" we claim to be we shouldn't be dependent upon our government to tax us in order to help the poor, the sick, the orphans and the widows among us. It should be our job as Christians to go out with joy and willingness and use our resources to help those in need. Yet we grumble and complain when the government "forces" us to do something we should be doing anyway.