BOAZ/Stew

Read Acts 5:1-11
Ananias and Sapphira might have a problem with your assertion that they had the freedom to choose. So Christianity offers a choice? Nice choice... you can hand over ALL your possessions to the apostles OR say goodnight!

Boaz,

Now who is imputing? Where did I say the international working class could never get out of it? Where did I say “You’re just working class… you can’t be an employer?” NOWHERE. Get your facts right BOAZ. Don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. You speak with forked tongue.

I’m not the one creating an economic prison, it already exists – in reality for millions of people. Sure there are some people who can get themselves a Jim’s Mowing franchise. Whoopdee Doo. The fact is BOAZ not everyone can be, or wants to be an employer. Not everyone wants to exploit other people’s labour – and that is what being a capitalist employer is. What ever happened to do unto others etc? You don’t want to work for others, so the solution is to employ others? What kind of logic is that? BOAZ-hypocrite logic obviously.

The fact is BOAZ, that employers need people to employ. In order to be a profitable capitalist you need a situation where people have no choice but to take the job you give them for the money you are prepared to pay – and that pay must be lower than the price you eventually sell the goods for - exploitation. If everyone went out and got themselves a franchise etc there would be no-one to employ. So an individual might be able to “get out” and become a capitalist but there must be a reserve of people who don’t “get out” for whatever reason.

Capitalism requires for its very existence a working class to exploit, the poorer the better, so don’t pretend one doesn’t exist. You are simply denying reality.

Socialism is the only solution for ALL OF THE WORKING CLASS, not just individuals within it. It is the only way that all workers will “get out”, and that humanity itself will “get out” of the coming period of capitalist barbarism.

Socialism has helped the "working class" so well in...umm...umm...hang on, it will come to me in a second...

Eastern Europeans couldn't wait to shake off socialism. The Chinese are socialists in name only, and the rest of the socialist nations on this planet are either rapidly distancing themselves from it (or in the case of an inane few, embracing it) or held in check by corrupt, brutal regimes while the people starve. Rolling in the tanks, and the gulag and bread queue are the inevitable end points of socialism, which is precisely why Eastern Europeans couldn't wait to throw the whole thing off. Instead of living high off the hog in the capitalist West any would-be socialists should actually spend some time speaking to people who lived in "socialist" countries. However, then they'd have to encounter the hypocrisy and inanity of their positions.

Socialists are no different from any other scare-mongering priests preaching the evil of man's ways and that salvation is at hand if only X, Y and Z are followed. If they can't scare people, they'll declare revolution/crusade/jihad.

shorbe

You're getting socialism a little mixed up with communism, I suspect, or at the very least, you're referring to one facet of socialist theory.

You can have degrees of socialism - in theory, the Labour Party is Australia's socialist party, though you certainly won't hear them calling themselves that, for the very reason that most perceive it as a monolithic concept, when there are varying degrees.

Consider democratic socialism, which merely seeks to address flaws in capitalism. It is effectively referring to anything which counters complete free-market concepts.
For instance, if you've ever opposed the privatisation of a corporation such as Telstra, or if you've even been a proponent for rising minimum wages, you are in effect, counteracting a free market system, and advocating a course of democratic socialism.
I'm certainly of the view that there is a middle ground here, with a capitalist based economy with all core services being socialised to ensure equity of access - education, communications, water etc.

The complete socialist model, with the government directly controlling the economy would be the nasty result you describe - and to have it foisted upon you by revolutionaries is the textbook description of communism, and should be opposed at all costs...

So yeah, I think that the apostles were democratic socialists, insofar as they believed the poor deserved to be treated in a just manner - and that the rich should give to the poor when necessary (ultimately, the core precept of socialism).

Sorry if I'm sounding a little preachy - but it just gets up my nose when socialism in its entirety is assumed to be a dirty word.

The Jerusalem Church is indeed a model of early socialism, in more ways than just it’s idealism.

Like modern socialist states, it was underpinned by violence (Acts 5.1-11).

Its egalitarianism was more rhetoric than reality, with a ruling elite (Acts 6.1-7) that also controlled the purse strings (Acts 4.35), and a tendency to sectarianism and exclusiveness.

It was penurious, relying on handouts from Diaspora churches (1 Cor 16).

And it didn’t work. The Jerusalem church disappears from the historical and ecclesial map after the fall of the Temple.

Our church grew out of Diaspora churches such as those founded by Paul.

Paul was no modern-day capitalist and very egalitarian in his way, but had some recognisably small-business values of pride in economic self-sufficiency and a fierce work ethic (1 Thess 2.9, II Cor 11.7-10), and refusing to live off others, even when it is his right (1 Cor 9).

II Thess 3 outlines Paul’s view on the obligation to the balance between of including the statement “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat” which makes modern-day socialists wince

Great post Rhian!

That is as good a summary of the issue as we're going to get.