Jump to content


Photo

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


  • Please log in to reply
2444 replies to this topic

#2421 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 24 August 2019 - 1139 AM

Ms Hoyt does not seem to be very familiar with European political thought. Communism is not generally regarded as centrist in Western Europe at present. Moreover, as a European myself, I am not aware of any era in which communism was widely perceived as other than well left on the political spectrum. That Mussolini was a convinced socialist prior to launching his own movement is well known. He was certainly not the only one to switch from socialism to fascism or vice versa. 

To many to most Americans (in the U.S.) Socialism is just another name for Communism. How is it distinguished in Europe? Or does one European country distinguish it more "left" and another more "right."

Thank you.


  • 0

#2422 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 24 August 2019 - 1147 AM

Social Democrats are considered Centrists and they're commies, right? At least, they must be because socialism and communism are the exact same thing in the near-monochrome that is the US political spectrum.

We're not near monochrome, we just have our dials turned down to show a very narrow portion of the political spectrum as what we use at all. 

We don't have monarchy in our system at all. The socialist stuff is showing up but it's all on the edge of where the democrats are and it's basically bleeding into what they used to be. 


Edited by rmgill, 24 August 2019 - 1147 AM.

  • 0

#2423 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,081 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 24 August 2019 - 1157 AM

The Green Nude Eel hits another snag;

 

https://www.cnbc.com...ven-stores.html

 

Walmart is suing Elon Musk’s electric vehicle and clean energy company after Tesla solar panels atop seven of the retailer’s stores allegedly caught fire, according a court filing.

 

The Walmart suit alleges breach of contract, gross negligence and failure to live up to industry standards. Walmart is asking Tesla to remove solar panels from more than 240 Walmart locations where they have been installed, and to pay damages related to all the fires Walmart says that Tesla caused.

 

The Walmart suit, filed in the state of New York, alleges that: “As of November 2018, no fewer than seven Walmart stores had experienced fires due to Tesla’s solar systems - including the four fires described above and three others that had occurred earlier.” The filing details evacuations, damaged property and inventory.

 


  • 0

#2424 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 24 August 2019 - 1202 PM

Antifa means anti fascists, but national socialists  don't mean socialists 


  • 0

#2425 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,749 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2019 - 1331 PM

 

Ms Hoyt does not seem to be very familiar with European political thought. Communism is not generally regarded as centrist in Western Europe at present. Moreover, as a European myself, I am not aware of any era in which communism was widely perceived as other than well left on the political spectrum. That Mussolini was a convinced socialist prior to launching his own movement is well known. He was certainly not the only one to switch from socialism to fascism or vice versa. 

To many to most Americans (in the U.S.) Socialism is just another name for Communism. How is it distinguished in Europe? Or does one European country distinguish it more "left" and another more "right."

Thank you.

 

That is so true since our home grown socialists ARE Communists.


  • 0

#2426 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 24 August 2019 - 1437 PM

Notwithstanding the amusement about the attempts by the American Right to convince the rest of the world that traditional usage of political terms is wrong and the usage they came up with in the last 30 years or so is right, the issue of how socialist National Socialism was popped up on my screen again recently when I translated those articles from a German 1943 newspaper over on the King Sarget Military History Forum:

 

The True Conditions In England

Report by internees returned from the British island

Berlin, 30 October

 

A representative of the German news offices had the opportunity to talk to some of the internees who returned from England these days, including wounded soldiers, captains and sailors of German merchant ships, as well as some women.

 

[...]

 

Particularly interesting and noteworthy perceptions the returnes could make on the attitude of the English population towards the social issues of the present and the future. They all agree on the extraordinary interest which the simple man in England has in the socialist achievements and institutions of Germany, which stand in such stark contrast to the miserable conditions among the broad working masses of England.

 

[...]

 

http://www.tank-net....44062&p=1440437

 

Mind, just three days earlier the same rag ran an article on how Churchill is under pressure by the Labour Party and British Communists, which apparently both get their instructions directly from Moscow, to open the second front against Germany.

 

I pointed out earlier on this thread how "socialist" was essentially synonymous with "republican" in post-WW I Germany, because earlier socialists had been the only anti-monarchist forces here. Still, the above quote shows that the Nazis clearly had some understanding of, and claim to, socialism as providing for the working man - even if it was overall merely a development of the public welfare system introduced by Bismarck. To whom I keep coming back for acknowledging that political success by socialist parties is best prevented by addressing the social issues they thrive on.

 

I further think a fallacy is in equating socialism with Marxism in modern times. But the term existed decades before Marx, and the idea of common use of ressources by society of course long predates even the French and British 18th century proponents of Early Socialism, often by religious communities; early Christiandom is my go-to example. Non-Marxist socialist movements kept existing besides the Marxist ones, too, though overshadowed by the latter.

 

Most recently, some parties of the European New Right have clearly socialist leanings, at least by American standards. The French Rassemblement (ex Front) National has styled itself the defender of workers' rights, like the 35-hour workweek; UKIP the champion of the National Health Service. The German AfD wants to roll back the Schröderian welfare reforms, and its Eastern wing basically wants to get back to the socialist anemities of the old DDR. They all also share the anti-EU stance with the extreme Left, which considers it a neo-liberal tool of oppression of the masses, pushing privatization of common means for the benefits of the capitalists.

 

You can argue all day how socialist the Nazis were, and where that puts them in the political continuum (in contemporary Germany there was never a doubt they were on the extreme right, least of all by themselves). The thing is, wherever they are, the same applies to the current right-wing parties with their mix of nationalist and socialist ideas. If the Nazis were left-wingers - so is UKIP and their ilk.


  • 0

#2427 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,971 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 24 August 2019 - 1453 PM

Summary of the previous post:

We Euros know the Truth™ of Politics, while you Deplorable, Uncouth Americans refuse to acknowledge our evident superiority in all things. 

Well, except in arriving to the Moon, inventing powered flight, developing safe nuclear power generation, building and maintaining Internet, winning two world wars, being able to withstand the Soviet Communist menace during the Cold War, and a few more, minor aspects.

 

You even elected Bad Bad Orange Man as President, instead of that paragon of political acumen, and honesty, that would have been the first female President of the United States.


Edited by sunday, 24 August 2019 - 1453 PM.

  • 0

#2428 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 24 August 2019 - 1641 PM

So, any arguments on what is actually stated in the post?


  • 0

#2429 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,971 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 24 August 2019 - 1701 PM

So, any arguments on what is actually stated in the post?

 
What for? You were not reasoned into your opinion. Erudition is not the same as wisdom, and calling Christianism a form of Socialism only shows that you do not understand Christianism, Socialism, or both.
 
Edited to add some arguments:
 
On Collectivism, Socialism, and Christianity
 

(...)

These main points in the history of Socialism lead up to an examination of its spirit and intention. The best idealism of earlier times was fixed upon the soul rather than upon the body: exactly the opposite is the case with Socialism. Social questions are almost entirely questions of the body — public health, sanitation, housing, factory conditions, infant mortality, employment of women, hours of work, rates of wages, accidents, unemployment, pauperism, old age pensions, sickness, infirmity, lunacy, feeble-mindedness, intemperance, prostitution, physical deterioration. All these are excellent ends for activity in themselves, but all of them are mainly concerned with the care or cure of the body. To use a Catholic phrase, they are opportunities for corporal works of mercy, which may lack the spiritual intention that would make them Christian. The material may be made a means to the spiritual, but is not to be considered an end in itself. This world is a place of probation, and the time is short. Man is here for a definite purpose, a purpose which transcends the limits of this mortal life, and his first business is to realize this purpose and carry it out with whatever help and guidance he may find. The purpose is a spiritual one, but he is free to choose or refuse the end for which he was created; he is free to neglect or to co-operate with the Divine assistance, which will give his life the stability and perfection of a spiritual rather than of a material nature. This being so, there must be a certain order in the nature of his development. He is not wholly spiritual nor wholly material; he has a soul, a mind, and a body; but the interests of the soul must be supreme, and the interests of mind and body must be brought into proper subservience to it. His movement towards perfection is by way of ascent; it is not easy; it requires continual exercise of the will, continual discipline, continual training — it is a warfare and a pilgrimage, and in it are two elements, the spiritual and the material, which are one in the unity of his daily life. As St. Paul pointed out, there must be a continual struggle between these two elements. If the individual life is to be a success, the spiritual desire must triumph, the material one must be subordinate, and when this is so the whole individual life is lived with proper economy, spiritual things being sought after as an end, while material things are used merely as a means to that end.

The point, then, to be observed is that the spiritual life is really the economic life. From the Christian point of view material necessities are to be kept at a minimum, and material superfluities as far as possible to be dispensed with altogether. The Christian is a soldier and a pilgrim who requires material things only as a means to fitness and nothing more. In this he has the example of Christ Himself, Who came to earth with a minimum of material advantages and persisted thus even to the Cross. The Christian, then, not only from the individual but also from the social standpoint, has chosen the better part. He does not despise this life, but, just because his material desires are subordinate to his spiritual ones, he lives it much more reasonably, much more unselfishly, much more beneficially to his neighbours. The point, too, which he makes against the Socialist is this. The Socialist wishes to distribute material goods in such a way as to establish a substantial equality, and in order to do this he requires the State to make and keep this distribution compulsory. The Christian replies to him: "You cannot maintain this widespread distribution, for the simple reason that you have no machinery for inducing men to desire it. On the contrary, you do all you can to increase the selfish and accumulative desires of men: you centre and concentrate all their interest on material accumulation, and then expect them to distribute their goods." This ultimate difference between Christian and Socialist teaching must be clearly understood. Socialism appropriates all human desires and centres them on the here-and-now, on material benefit and prosperity. But material goods are so limited in quality, in quantity, and in duration that they are incapable of satisfying human desires, which will ever covet more and more and never feel satisfaction. In this Socialism and Capitalism are at one, for their only quarrel is over the bone upon which is the meat that perisheth. Socialism, of itself and by itself, can do nothing to diminish or discipline the immediate and materialistic lust of men, because Socialism is itself the most exaggerated and universalized expression of this lust yet known to history. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches and practices unselfish distribution of material goods, both according to the law of justice and according to the law of charity.

Again, ethically speaking, Socialism is committed to the doctrine of determinism. Holding that society makes the individuals of which it is composed, and not vice versa, it has quite lost touch with the invigorating Christian doctrine of free will. This fact may be illustrated by its attitude towards the three great institutions which have hitherto most strongly exemplified and protected that doctrine — the Church, the Family, and private ownership. Socialism, with its essentially materialistic nature, can admit no raison d'etre for a spiritual power, as complementary and superior to the secular power of the State. Man, as the creature of a material environment, and as the subject of a material State, has no moral responsibilities and can yield to no allegiance beyond that of the State. Any power which claims to appropriate and discipline his interior life, and which affords him sanctions that transcend all evolutionary and scientific determinism, must necessarily incur Socialist opposition. So, too, with the Family. According to the prevalent Socialist teaching, the child stands between two authorities, that of its parents and that of the State, and of these the State is certainly the higher. The State therefore is endowed with the higher authority and with all powers of interference to be used at its own discretion. Contrast this with the Christian notion of the Family — an organic thing with an organic life of its own. The State, it is true, must ensure a proper basis for its economic life, but beyond that it should not interfere: its business is not to detach the members of the family from their body in order to make them separately and selfishly efficient; a member is cut off from its body only as a last resource to prevent organic poisoning. The business of the State is rather that of helping the Family to a healthy, co-operative, and productive unity. The State was never meant to appropriate to itself the main parental duties, it was rather meant to provide the parents, especially poor parents, with a wider, freer, healthier family sphere in which to be properly parental. Socialism, then, both in Church and Family, is impersonal and deterministic: it deprives the individual of both his religious and his domestic freedom. And it is exactly the same with the institution of private property.

The Christian doctrine of property can best be stated in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "In regard to an external thing man has two powers: one is the power of managing and controlling it, and as to this it is lawful for a man to possess private property. It is, moreover, necessary for human life for three reasons. First, because everyone is more zealous in looking after a thing that belongs to him than a thing that is the common property of all or of many; because each person, trying to escape labour, leaves to another what is everybody's business, as happens where there are many servants. Secondly, because there is more order in the management of men's affairs if each has his own work of looking after definite things; whereas there would be confusion if everyone managed everything indiscriminately. Thirdly, because in this way the relations of men are kept more peaceful, since everyone is satisfied with his own possession, whence we see that quarrels are commoner between those who jointly own a thing as a whole. The other power which man has over external things is the using of them;; and as to this man must not hold external things as his own property, but as everyone's; so as to make no difficulty, I mean, in sharing when others are in need" (Summa theologica, II-II, Q. Ixvi, a. 2). If man, then, has the right to own, control, and use private property, the State cannot give him this right or take it away; it can only protect it. Here, of course, we are at issue with Socialism, for, according to it, the State is the supreme power from which all human rights are derived; it acknowledges no independent spiritual, domestic, or individual power whatever. In nothing is the bad economy of Socialism more evident than in its derogation or denial of all the truly personal and self-directive powers of human nature, and its misuse of such human qualities as it does not despise or deny is a plain confession of its material and deterministic limitations. It is true that the institutions of religion, of the family, and of private ownership are liable to great abuses, but the perfection of human effort and character demands a freedom of choice between good and evil as their first necessary condition. This area of free choice is provided, on the material side, by private ownership; on the spiritual and material, by the Christian Family; and on the purely spiritual by religion. The State, then, instead of depriving men of these opportunities of free and fine production, not only of material but also of intellectual values, should rather constitute itself as their defender.

(...)


Edited by sunday, 24 August 2019 - 1805 PM.

  • 0

#2430 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 24 August 2019 - 1849 PM

 

The Green Nude Eel hits another snag;

 

https://www.cnbc.com...ven-stores.html

 

Walmart is suing Elon Musk’s electric vehicle and clean energy company after Tesla solar panels atop seven of the retailer’s stores allegedly caught fire, according a court filing.

 

The Walmart suit alleges breach of contract, gross negligence and failure to live up to industry standards. Walmart is asking Tesla to remove solar panels from more than 240 Walmart locations where they have been installed, and to pay damages related to all the fires Walmart says that Tesla caused.

 

The Walmart suit, filed in the state of New York, alleges that: “As of November 2018, no fewer than seven Walmart stores had experienced fires due to Tesla’s solar systems - including the four fires described above and three others that had occurred earlier.” The filing details evacuations, damaged property and inventory.

 

 

One of the hazards of solar panels is that even if disconnected, the power leads have power. So long as it has light. It belies the normal treatment of something electrical as with a generator you can turn it off. As soon as you unbox a PV panel, it's making power. Touch the leads and ANGRY pixies want to jump across to you. 


  • 0

#2431 Mikel2

Mikel2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,497 posts

Posted 24 August 2019 - 2101 PM

Touch the leads and ANGRY pixies want to jump across to you. 


AVE?
  • 0

#2432 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,971 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 24 August 2019 - 2109 PM

Most famous Canadian engineering youtuber ever!


  • 0

#2433 Mikel2

Mikel2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,497 posts

Posted 24 August 2019 - 2111 PM

https://avedictionary.com/
  • 0

#2434 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0320 AM

Notwithstanding the amusement about the attempts by the American Right to convince the rest of the world that traditional usage of political terms is wrong and the usage they came up with in the last 30 years or so is right, the issue of how socialist National Socialism was popped up on my screen again recently when I translated those articles from a German 1943 newspaper over on the King Sarget Military History Forum:

 

The True Conditions In England

Report by internees returned from the British island

Berlin, 30 October

 

A representative of the German news offices had the opportunity to talk to some of the internees who returned from England these days, including wounded soldiers, captains and sailors of German merchant ships, as well as some women.

 

[...]

 

Particularly interesting and noteworthy perceptions the returnes could make on the attitude of the English population towards the social issues of the present and the future. They all agree on the extraordinary interest which the simple man in England has in the socialist achievements and institutions of Germany, which stand in such stark contrast to the miserable conditions among the broad working masses of England.

 

[...]

 

http://www.tank-net....44062&p=1440437

 

Mind, just three days earlier the same rag ran an article on how Churchill is under pressure by the Labour Party and British Communists, which apparently both get their instructions directly from Moscow, to open the second front against Germany.

 

I pointed out earlier on this thread how "socialist" was essentially synonymous with "republican" in post-WW I Germany, because earlier socialists had been the only anti-monarchist forces here. Still, the above quote shows that the Nazis clearly had some understanding of, and claim to, socialism as providing for the working man - even if it was overall merely a development of the public welfare system introduced by Bismarck. To whom I keep coming back for acknowledging that political success by socialist parties is best prevented by addressing the social issues they thrive on.

 

I further think a fallacy is in equating socialism with Marxism in modern times. But the term existed decades before Marx, and the idea of common use of ressources by society of course long predates even the French and British 18th century proponents of Early Socialism, often by religious communities; early Christiandom is my go-to example. Non-Marxist socialist movements kept existing besides the Marxist ones, too, though overshadowed by the latter.

 

Most recently, some parties of the European New Right have clearly socialist leanings, at least by American standards. The French Rassemblement (ex Front) National has styled itself the defender of workers' rights, like the 35-hour workweek; UKIP the champion of the National Health Service. The German AfD wants to roll back the Schröderian welfare reforms, and its Eastern wing basically wants to get back to the socialist anemities of the old DDR. They all also share the anti-EU stance with the extreme Left, which considers it a neo-liberal tool of oppression of the masses, pushing privatization of common means for the benefits of the capitalists.

 

You can argue all day how socialist the Nazis were, and where that puts them in the political continuum (in contemporary Germany there was never a doubt they were on the extreme right, least of all by themselves). The thing is, wherever they are, the same applies to the current right-wing parties with their mix of nationalist and socialist ideas. If the Nazis were left-wingers - so is UKIP and their ilk.

 

 

I think you pointed out much earlier that there were 2 senior Nazi's that had socialist inclinations, including aims toward nationalizing industry. Even Goebbels was apparently initially sympathetic towards them. But that was of absolutely no interest to the Fuhrer, who wanted rich patrons, and a strong industrial landscape to build the war weapons he wanted. Ironically the allies near nationalized major industries for the duration to get the output they needed. Kind of ironic. :D

 

I think the Nazi's were, to give credit, genius's at imagery. They could sell one image whilst meaning entirely another with absolutely no problem at all. So I really don't think we need to take them at their word having 'socialist in a title, when they could just as easily expound they wanted peace whilst arming themselves to the hilt.

 

As far as religion and socialism, I cannot speak for elsewhere but there is certainly  some truth in this in the UK. The British Methodist movement I gather arose in areas that were also synonymous with the rise of Socialism. In fact, just a glance at the wiki entry will tell you why.

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Methodism

Wesleyan theology, which is upheld by the Methodist Churches, focuses on sanctification and the effect of faith on the character of a Christian. Distinguishing Methodist doctrines include the new birth,[3]assurance,[4][5]imparted righteousness, the possibility of entire sanctification,[6][7] the works of piety, and the primacy of Scripture. Most Methodists teach that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for all of humanity and that salvation is available for all; in theology, this view is known as Arminianism.[8][nb 2] This teaching rejects the Calvinist position that God has pre-ordained the salvation of a select group of people. However, Whitefield and several other early leaders of the movement were considered Calvinistic Methodists and held to the Calvinist position. In addition to evangelism, Methodism emphasises charity and support for the sick, the poor, and the afflicted through the works of mercy.[9][10] These ideals, collectively known as the Social Gospel, are put into practice by the establishment of hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, and schools to follow Christ's command to spread the good news and serve all people.[11][12][9]


  • 0

#2435 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0415 AM

What for? You were not reasoned into your opinion. Erudition is not the same as wisdom, and calling Christianism a form of Socialism only shows that you do not understand Christianism, Socialism, or both.

 
Edited to add some arguments:
 
On Collectivism, Socialism, and Christianity

 

Ehm, that's your whole hangup? I didn't write Christianity, I wrote early Christiandom (I find the word is actually Christendom); and I said it was an example of common use of resources in a religious community, long before the (mostly) secular 17th/18th century proponents of Early Socialism, not yet named thus, like Babeuf, Fourier, de Saint-Simon, Owen and Weitling. And my whole point is that this is not the Marxist kind of socialism. Like many (then) small religions focussed on the hereafter rather than worldly life, living in near-term eschatological expectation and often under the pressure of persecution, early Christians tended to form communes, trying to emulate the life of Jesus and his apostles, and the subsequent original Jerusalem congregation.

 

Obviously that's an impractical base for a whole society, and fell by the wayside as the faith became a majority in the respective countries - except for various orders and sects which tried to go back to the small-scale approach. Religiously-motivated, utopian-minded communities still exist of course, like the religious part of the kibbutz movement in Israel, or the more dubious sectarian kind like the former Colonia Dignidad in Argentina; I'm not sure how the idea of common property is handled in today's monasteries of mainstream Christianity.

 

The common denominator is that it generally works due to small scale and volunteer membership that doesn't seek to expand its ideas onto majority society, which they often need to trade with to survive. Marxists were never fond of this kind of religious socialism, probably for that very reason besides the whole "opium for the people" thing. Neither do even notable Christian church critics like Hans Küng condone attempts to construct the teachings of Christ as a call for social revolution á la liberation theology.

 

But, to circle back to the actual topic, if we are talking about any kind of socialism implemented by the Nazis, it was certainly not of the Marxist kind either (much less, to be sure, of the religious one, both bases being anathema to their ideology). The applicable term here is Volksgemeinschaft; also see NS-Volkswohlfahrt and German Labor Front. So different types of socialism (at least in American terms), ranging from the idea of a welfare state to common property, definitely exist.

 

I have no idea what all this has to do with Donald Trump.


  • 0

#2436 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,971 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0544 AM

Dunno what this has to do with Trump, that is a question you only must answer, as you introduced the false equality between Christianity and Socialism. This has to do a lot with the vapid ideology of the lady that gives the name to this thread, however.

Christendom is the term applied to the lands where Christianity is the religion of their inhabitants.

Definition.
 

In its wider sense this term is used to describe the part of the world which is inhabited by Christians, as Germany in the Middle Ages was the country inhabited by Germans. The word will be taken in this quantitative sense in the article RELIGIONS in comparing the extent of Christendom with that of Paganism or of Islam.

But there is a narrower sense in which Christendom stands for a polity as well as a religion, for a nation as well as for a people. Christendom in this sense was an ideal which inspired and dignified many centuries of history and which has not yet altogether lost its power over the minds of men.

 

Furthermore, there is a difference between voluntary use in common of resources belonging to different individuals, and compulsory sharing of resources whose only legitimate owner is the State. Not far from the difference between sex done between a man and a woman that love each other, and want to build a family, and State-sanctioned rape. To a shallow observer the result could be the same, a baby born, the process could not be more different.

 

We could also elaborate on the different anthropological conceptions underlying Christianity and Socialism, basically the "pessimist" Christian conception of the fallen human nature due to original sin, that has been shown as a quite valid thing to have in mind when designing government systems, versus the Rousseauian notion of the good savage, that so many misfortunes has brought to Humanity.

 

Anyway, if the German chattering classes think the same about Socialism as a kind of Christianity-related religion, then one could find an alternative explanation of the movement of popular vote from CDU/CSU to that watermelon Green party you have.


  • 0

#2437 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0810 AM

Dunno what this has to do with Trump, that is a question you only must answer, as you introduced the false equality between Christianity and Socialism. This has to do a lot with the vapid ideology of the lady that gives the name to this thread, however.

Christendom is the term applied to the lands where Christianity is the religion of their inhabitants.

Definition.
 

In its wider sense this term is used to describe the part of the world which is inhabited by Christians, as Germany in the Middle Ages was the country inhabited by Germans. The word will be taken in this quantitative sense in the article RELIGIONS in comparing the extent of Christendom with that of Paganism or of Islam.

But there is a narrower sense in which Christendom stands for a polity as well as a religion, for a nation as well as for a people. Christendom in this sense was an ideal which inspired and dignified many centuries of history and which has not yet altogether lost its power over the minds of men.

 

Furthermore, there is a difference between voluntary use in common of resources belonging to different individuals, and compulsory sharing of resources whose only legitimate owner is the State. [...]

 

Well yes - that's what I said. When we're talking of socialism in the form of Marxism, or the preceding non-Marxist iterations of ideologies meant to run a whole state on (as with Babeuf, or more completely Karl Rodbertus), participation is obviously not voluntary; not least because it probably wouldn't survive the competition. I would agree with Küng et al that Christianity isn't a socialist ideology, yet there are Christian influences even in modern socialism, despite the bitter enmity to those traits by Marxists. At a minimum, there are common roots despite wildly diverse positions after various splits.

 

Wilhelm Weitling, leader of the League of the Just which split off from de Saint-Simon's movement soon after its creation and became the Communist League in 1847, is considered the first German theoretician of communism. Which was a new quality over previous socialist ideas with its concept of class struggle - though Weitling also had deep Christian convictions. He quarreled with Marx over their different approaches, and got quickly thrown out the League.

 

De Saint-Simon himself was heavily influenced by the "classless" society of the early US for which he had fought in the War of Independence, and particularly the economic views of Adam Smith; his 1825 "Le nouveau christianisme" which called for Christians to make just consideration of lower classes in the distribution of wealth became a cornerstone of Catholic social teaching that evolved as a Christian alternative to atheist Marxist socialism, but also the Bismarckian welfare state from the late 19th century.

 

Leo XIII.'s seminal 1891 encylica Rerum Novarum was influenced by that "workers' pope's" appreciation of the "worker's bishop" Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler, co-founder of the German Catholic Center Party and opponent of Bismarck in the Kulturkampf against the "trans-montanist" influence of the Catholic Church in German. He preached about the social responsibility coming with property to be distributed for the purpose of welfare and administration, in the interest of order and peace; an idea today enshrined in Article 14 of the German constitution. Incidentally, the current local initiative to expropriate major housing corporations to put a stop to rising rents in Berlin, supported by the Left Party, is basing its demands on that article - though it's arguably overreach.

 

And speaking of the CDU, their 1947 Ahlen Platform famously called for an economic system based upon Christian social teaching that was called "Christian socialism" by its proponents. Use of that term has been controversial since it came up in the mid-19th century, precisely because "socialism" became increasingly conflated with Marxism. It probably also played a role that early users were mostly Protestant clergy, while Pius XI. rejected any kind of socialism as incompatible with Christianity in his 1931 Quadragesimo anno. The term itself didn't make it into the Ahlen Platform either, yet the idea was pretty clear:

 

The capitalist economic system has not done justice to the public and social interests of the German people. After the terrible political, economic and social collapse as a result of criminal power politics, only a reorganization from the ground up can occur.

The content and purpose of this social and economic reorganization can no longer be the capitalist pursuit of profit and power, but only the well-being of our people. Through a public sector order, the German people should receive an economic and social constitution that corresponds to the law and dignity of man, serves the spiritual and material buildup of our people, and secures the inner and outer peace.

 

State socialism as such was rejected, but major industries were to be partially nationalized, and there was to be strong workers' participation in management. In the event, this was quickly superseded by the 1949 Düsseldorf Guidelines which codified the principle of a social market economy as pushed for by Konrad Adenauer, and became the base for the West German economic system. Nationalizations technically remained on the books per Article 14, but have never been done; worker's participation OTOH has become a hallmark of the German economic model.

 

And I still don't know how Trump relates to any debate about socialism and Christianity. I didn't make the claim this is about "orange man bad".


  • 0

#2438 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,971 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 25 August 2019 - 0825 AM

Axel, did you read Rerum novarum? This could help in the knowledge of the matter, and provide points for further reading.


  • 0

#2439 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 25 August 2019 - 1240 PM

 

Touch the leads and ANGRY pixies want to jump across to you. 


AVE?

 

Does a bear shit in the woods?


  • 0

#2440 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 25 August 2019 - 1255 PM

Ehm, that's your whole hangup? I didn't write Christianity, I wrote early Christiandom (I find the word is actually Christendom); and I said it was an example of common use of resources in a religious community, long before the (mostly) secular 17th/18th century proponents of Early Socialism, not yet named thus, like Babeuf, Fourier, de Saint-Simon, Owen and Weitling. And my whole point is that this is not the Marxist kind of socialism. Like many (then) small religions focussed on the hereafter rather than worldly life, living in near-term eschatological expectation and often under the pressure of persecution, early Christians tended to form communes, trying to emulate the life of Jesus and his apostles, and the subsequent original Jerusalem congregation.


Key and important differences.

1. Is it top down government or private affiliation?
2. Is it enforced or is it entirely voluntary?
3. Does the state own the means of production or are the voluntary members pooling resources?

If it's the latter in each of those cases, it's not SOCIALISM. It's a social collective.

Edited by rmgill, 25 August 2019 - 1954 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users