WATERBOY
yes, I concede that the transformation of a social group through repentance and faith will not bring in unending utopia. It does for a while, but their is a cycle which occurrs that I have observed a number of times.
1/ Revival... repentance.. re-discovering the first love for God.
2/ Excessive worship and unending meetings....
3/ Some have personal and work related responsibilities, so they fade from the wave of revival related meetings.
4/ The other 'spiritual' mob tend to frown on this, which eventually leads to social breakdown of some relationships.
5/ The wave breaks.. the foam spreads.. and the water slides back into the sea.

While that sounds quite bleak, and pessimistic, the key to understanding it so it does not recurr is in the first point. Its the need to avoid a pendulum experience. But having said that, in no way am I suggesting that careful adherance by all members of society to Christian faith and principle can be achieved other than at the personal level, and not universally. We all have our own problems, issues and backslidings for various reasons. Hence, the principle "You who are strong should bear with the failings of the weak" says Paul.. and "Consider how to stir one another up to good works and love" Says the author of Hebrews. So, its a team effort.

I still feel though that in earthly terms, a Christ centred society will do much better than a human/self centered one.

Rob. You misunderstand Pauls point "heaping burning coals" is about 'doing everything possible to OPEN the way to restoration of the enemy to God' . The more they are encountering the Grace of God, the more responsible they are. We don't show kindness to bring harm on them but restoration.
On topic.. The economic principles of Marxism/communism failed for the same reason they temporarily failed for the early disciples. But communism has no concept of divine restoration/forgiveness...only 'legislation' and brute force.

Rob,

Forgiveness,in Christian theology, isthe outcome of God's judgement which is described by the metaphor of the refiners fire. Itis a mistake to regard the fire (heaping of coals) as destructive in this context. Inthe process of refining, the fire is 'constructive', purifying or perfecting.
Paul instructs them to forgive because that is God's will. The 'coals' are not sent inorder to destroy but to elicit the good.
And,of course,this isin NO WAY tobe taken literally.

BOAZ,

The IDEA of a God that requires only that we love one another is certainly a powerful idea. Of allthe possible guiding principles for life I can think of no other that is more worthy or more likely to lead to a personally satisfying life or that might work to form a more compassionate and humane society. The trick really is how to hold onto it in the face of lifes ugly little realities.

The story ofthe early church is the story ofa political struggle. The struggle of the powerless against the dominating force of the Roman occupiers of Palestine/Israel. In large part their struggle was directed against the 'insiders',Herod,the Chief Priests and so on who, by their cooperation with the Roman Occupiers, betrayed the people and participated with the Romans inthe exercise of dominating power. They understood the principle that 'power corrupts'. They were taking a beating at the wrong end of that pineapple. They also understood the power of passive resistance... well.... some did. Notwithstanding the idiosyncracies of various churches or the sometimes bizzare metaphysics which they adopted they did identify one or two simple but profound principles for life that are as valid and worthy today asever. Perhaps there even was one man who represented these principles in such a powerful way that his name came to represent the whole people.

I think itis unsurprising that modern socialism emerged within the milieu of 19th Century European, Jewish/Protestant intellectualism and that there is a direct connection with the 'communalistc' idealism that existed in the early church. Nordo I find it surprising thatit ultimately found its corrupted expression in modern communism.

Aah Shorbe,

Life is not explained by succinct little comments that are apparently incontrovertible, assertions (at least some of us believe) must be backed up with evidence of fact and reasoning.

“If-people-don't-want-a-revolution,-or-if-there-is-one,-and-people-later-decide-they-don't-want-it-then,-what-happens?”--This-must-be-the-old-individual-choice-chestnut.

Were there people who didn’t want the French Revolution, or the American Revolution? Can anyone decide they want to go back to feudalism, or British Rule? I bet the kings wanted to go back – too bad for them.

Have the people of the world who have been invaded and subjugated by capitalist imperialists had any choice about it? When the Russians had their revolution did the 13 capitalist countries who fought against them respect their choice?

I don’t mean here to condone the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, or anywhere else for that matter – they weren’t “revolutions” or “revolutionary” invasions at all – revolutions come from below. But what is different about the US invasion of Iraq “spreading democracy” than Soviet invasions “spreading revolution”? On a superficial level (by which I mean there are probably different specific factors which would need to be studied), not much at all – both of them are attempting to subjugate the population for their own ends.

What I often find is that capitalists hold up as evidence of capitalism’s beneficence the atrocities of one system, whether it is alleged “socialism” or Islam, or whatever, and ignore their own, excusing them away as “spreading democracy” or “spreading freedom” or some sort of lesser evil.

Despite popular misconceptions, socialism isn’t something which is imposed from above, it comes from below. And revolutions don’t just happen because madmen con the people – there are objective conditions which cause people to spontaneously struggle against the existing conditions (what you might call a “backlash”). In simple terms, what happens as a result depends on the objective factors, and who is the most conscious, who has the best strategy and articulates it, and who gains the most support (and the most powerful support) from the people, and what action is taken.

cont

The French Revolution didn’t happen because a few people decided to get rid of feudalism, the main driving force was the changes to the means of production – the scientific and industrial revolutions – economic progress could no longer be contained within the feudalist economic and political structure. Once the consciousness of people caught up with the objective conditions the revolution occurred, and nothing could really stop it – the nobility had lost its power to stop it. Capitalism now spans the globe whether people like it or not and, in one way or another, quite a few people don’t like it.

A socialist revolution won’t occur because a few people want to get rid of capitalism. The complete globalisation of production is now coming into conflict with the nation state system. As the objective conditions become worse for more and more people – through bad working and social conditions, economic downturn, increased militarism, maybe even the draft – they will start looking for other options. For example, even if the ALP win the next election, what difference will it make to a lot of people, and what could the ALP actually do to stem the flood of capital, and jobs, to Asia? In fact, the ALP and the unions often carry out policies that the conservatives wouldn’t be able to carry out – Hawke & Keating deregulation etc. - there are definite reasons the ALP has been unable to gain electoral support – workers were burnt the last time – if they win this time, it is only because the Coalition has become unelectable. It won’t take long for the ALP to reveal their true colours, what then for workers? Really all socialists do is explain why these things happen, and what they believe the solution is – it is then up to workers to decide who to believe. At the moment Marxists consider that their task, and that of workers, is to build a mass international political party which fights for the interests of workers independently of any capitalist parties.

“By-setting-up-a-single-political-endpoint,-you-instantly-polarise-the-entire-world-into-"true-believers"-and-"non-believers"-“Despite-your-claims-that-capitalism-isn't-pluralistic,-I-don't-see-the-Amish-being-forced-to-buy-SUVs-or-Nike-shoes.”

cont...

There is irony in you using a peculiar religious sect which shuns the “excesses” of capitalism as an example of capitalism’s fantastic pluralism. Probably the only reason they manage to do it is because of a strong vision of their blissful-afterlife which you apparently think is as hopelessly utopian as socialism.

Anyway, just because there are people in the world who don’t indulge in consumerism, doesn’t mean they can avoid, or are unaffected by capitalist-economic-relations. I don’t know much about the Amish, but I’d say they own their land, and probably have to pay taxes etc. I would suggest that such attempts to withdraw from the world are actually a reaction to the social conditions of capitalism, rather than a shining example of capitalism’s pluralism. Shutting oneself away is not a solution. If I don’t like capitalism, are you suggesting I join the Amish? Is this “pluralist”?

Capitalism tolerates the Amish and similar groups because they don’t actually pose a threat to its foundations, either by ideals or growth in numbers, in fact they can be used as examples of “individual-choice”. Try setting up a few socialist-communities which start growing and see how long it takes for a new McCarthy to emerge. Apparently in the US anti-war groups (not necessarily socialist in orientation) of normal middle class people have been infiltrated by spies, provocateurs etc. You probably don’t believe me, but hey, that’s your choice. Check out all the hubbub about US-government phone-tapping and data-mining etc.

You suggest that socialists set up a “single-political-endpoint”. I’d suggest that capitalists want a single-economic-endpoint – capitalism, only it doesn’t matter what political-form it takes - capitalism profits in a democratic-republic like the US, a constitutional-monarchy like the UK, an autocratic-monarchy like the Saudis or Jordan, an autocratic-regime such Putin’s Russia, a religious-state such as Israel, or even a “communist” state like China. Capitalists don’t care about political-form as long as they can make a profit. What you don’t realise (or maybe you do) is that the big-capitalists are in power regardless of which form or colour of government appears as their front.

So yes, there is a single-political-endpoint to socialism - that is workers in power. And there is a single-economic-endpoint – an end to capitalist exploitation. The product of the work all of humanity will be returned to humanity for everyone’s benefit, not to make a few peoples’ bank balance bigger.

However that doesn’t mean that people won’t have “choices”, or that we’ll all be oppressed. Workers will have full control of their workplace, and will decide in a truly democratic fashion (worker democracy not bourgeois democracy) what will be produced, rationally on the basis of human need, not profit. Workers will collectively own the product of their own labour, and will dispose of it as they see fit. As they eliminate the excesses of chaotic capitalist-production, and the production of useless killing-machines, and bring about full employment, they will not need to do as much necessary work individually or collectively, and their time will be freed up to attend to truly creative and constructive pursuits.

Just because you don’t, and may never, see the need for a revolution, that doesn’t mean that workers at the coalface won’t. And if the majority decide that they want a socialist revolution, won’t you accept the will of the majority? If you don’t like it, you are free to join counter-revolutionary forces and shoot down workers at the barricades. Otherwise you can just “mind-your-own-business” and let it flow over you as you suggest that workers do now. Perhaps you could try to convince your employees to continue working for a fraction of what they produce – good luck on that one!

Ultimately, the so-called pluralist “choice” you are talking about maintaining is that of a relatively few people to own the means of production which should be owned by the whole of humanity, and to continue exploiting the majority of humanity for their own ends.

Sorry all, will return to topic next time.