Marx and Jesus (the Bible)

[underpants]

Matthew 25:15 And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to each according to his ability. And he went abroad at once.

Acts 2:45 And they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need.

Acts 4:32-35 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

[pnorman]

1. K & R!

n/t

[bhikkhu]

2. ...awfully hard to get there from here

to a great extent, even back in those days, people weren't so much converted as they were replaced...meaning that people are very resistant to changing their minds, but when an ideology with greater "fitness" to the times arises, it spreads through a culture as the old opponents die out, and the new adherents replace them. Fitness is the key - it has to embody a more effective approach with real advantages - and then look toward youth.

[jwirr]

3. Even that example of true Christianity did not work. There is always

some damn greed sleaze waiting around to destroy the peace.

[mudplanet]

4. Yea. How about that. Marx's ideas had more to do with fairness and humanity

than Milton Freidman's. Who'd a thunk?

[Kablooie]

5. Yes but...

He also said:

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.





... Wait a minute. You said *Karl* ?

[Igel]

6. Voluntary Marxism isn't what people object to.

Many conservatives practice something like it at home; they also tend to do a lot of sharing in church. What they object to is forced equality.

Some object to the idea of a commune in principle. "Commune" is an ideologically weighted word, and a lot of the opposition is to the people pushing the idea and how it's been implemented in the past.

On the other hand, having all things in common goes hand in hand with humility and modesty: If I have more than my neighbor and then my neighbor and I have all things in common, that doesn't actually mean that he takes anything. Simply put, if he were content with what he had the only reason to take anything would be avarice and greed. He'd aim for the lowest standard of living that provided his needs and stop there, in humility and modesty. Have yet to see a Marxist-oriented ideology that didn't start by saying that those in penury need help and should get it but immediately confuse it with the rather different claim that those with excess must have it taken away. It starts with love for the poor and ends with hate for the rich, acting as if one entailed the other. Sometimes "taking away" is even more important than "alleviating penury"; the only humility I've seen in Chinese or East European Marxist thought was what *others* needed to be taught, at least until there was a new ruling class that preached the importance of humility by the new class of poor since all the "bad guys'" money was already pocketed (largely by the new ruling class). Lack of humility kills Marxist thought as well as Xian thought: Both have to tolerate some inequality, and while neither should tolerate penury Xian thought has love of stuff as the crime (with "having stuff" being unimportant, if people aren't penurious) while early-stage Marxist revolutions say having more stuff than others is a crime.

Of course, most Marxist revolutions require killing, hatred, and bloodshed. In the name of peace and love, of course. (In this, they differ very little from jihad and Crusades.)

I'd also point out that the famous quote is "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." Not "to each according to his ability" (would that continue, "from each according to his need"?) The parable continues that each was to use his ability to return the maximum amount of profit. Probably a good point, and it's there you really find the overlap. Except that in the Xian parable it was the master talking to his servants with threat of punishment, and in Marxism it's supposed to be free men (although, in practice, it's always been the master talking to his servants with threat of punishment--the Xian parable at least is honest on this point).

[mudplanet]

8. You're confusing Marxism and Communism

And a lot of other stuff. "Lack of humility kills Marxist thought"? Hubris kills the reasoning of people from any tradition. Take for example, the political theories of the petty bourgeoisie. "Simply put, if he were content with what he had the only reason to take anything would be avarice and greed." whatabunchofbullshit. That line of "being content with what you have" was used on every cruelly exploited miner, farm worker, and textile worker in history when they struggled for better wages and better working conditions. Usually by the same fucking bourgeois assholes who ride by the slums and say, "They like living like that."

The only government in our hemisphere that even remotely resembles a communist government is Cuba. And the government of Cuba is a beacon of integrity compared to virtually every other Latin American government in history. The "ruling class" in communist Cuba doesn't have giant bank accounts in Miami or private incomes from the CIA's black budget, they don't make money trafficking drugs (like the government of Colombia) and they don't run the country as a kleptocracy. They didn't take the property of the rich out of spite, but in order to improve the lot of the average Cuban. The island has finite resources and the majority of them were "owned" by the rich.

I guess if I ignore history I could buy into your analysis.
Revolutions are revolutions. They're usually messy. We had one in this country.

And revolutions, in Marxist theory, require bloodshed because the capitalists and the wealthy aren't going to give up their privileges without a fight - not because it's required by the theoretic model or something. Communists would settle for a nice peaceful revolution if it was on offer.

You criticize how some people involved in revolutionary thought and activity "hate." That's because the people they are opposed to routinely practice torture and murder to get their way (or they collaborate with it by supporting those in power). Who wouldn't hate that kind of person?

For example, a lot of people on DU think the FARC is a "terrorist, criminal organization" but either fail to realize that FARC's approach to revolution is necessary because in Colombia if you try to exercise your lawful rights to change the government you get tortured and killed or they just don't care. A nice, peaceful and loving approach to democratic change would be great, and I'd support it, as long as it is not my family but your family who get to pay the price the rich demand for a peaceful and loving approach to change, which is being kidnapped, tortured and murdered. History's a bitch.

[rgbecker]

7. Consider this idea for a minute....

One State, say Vermont, with its strong independent socialistic bent, decides to change the way things are done in that state. Everyone votes to turn over their property to the state, the state buys out through eminent domain all the hold outs. The property is managed by a state agency with the rents set to make it possible to live and work there easily on low wages. Companies are invited to lease properties in the state to take advantage of the cheap labor, but must meet stringent standards in regards to workers rights, safety, vacation etc. Off course all health care, education, transportation is taken care of by the state. You get the picture....Socialism at the state level. Taxes are set to make it work. Utilities etc are taken over and the profit taken out of them and run by the state for the benefit of the consumers.

Issue: Would the state and its people be allowed to continue or would the Federal Government backed by the SCOTUS and the US Army come crashing down on such doings? Would they use the constitution to fight it and if so, siting what article?

[mudplanet]

10. Of course they'd use the Constitution to fight it, and rightly so.

We have a democracy, but it's a "constitutional democracy" (as opposed to what the Brits have).

What you're describing may or may not violate the Constitution (not enough detail) and determining that is the function of the courts.

The concept or practice of socialism isn't unconstitutional, but some steps taken to realize it might be.

Wording such as "the right to the pursuit of happiness" is pretty vague. Maybe intentionally so. I would think that the most likely grounds for an attack would be if the state laws contradicted the Federal Laws, especially "natural rights of liberty and property."

The way to do this is through policy. The State builds an extensive and functioning public transit system and increases the taxes on owning and operating private transportation to pay for it. This is, quite literally, how it is done in almost every other developed country. They have plenty of cars but they also have reliable and accessible public transit. Build a lot of decent public housing and increase the taxes on private property to pay for it. Pretty soon living in public housing looks a lot more attractive. You wouldn't have to do anything near as radical as taking people's property through eminent domain. You make a reasonably smooth transition that minimizes the economic harm to individuals and allows those who really, really don't want to "ride the maid bus" or "live with trash" to minimize their participation.

There is a process for amending the Constitution. You could even make capitalism and private property illegal. The process is outlined within the document itself.

[USA_1]

9. Jesus = World's # 1 Jewish Lefty