"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of blessings, Socialism is the equal distribution of misery."?
that's just the thing, not everyone contributes, why would anyone try to excell when in the end the outcome will be the same. Instead of my husband working 50 to 60 hrs a week, I'd prefer him to be home and not contribute so much. There goes our Gross domestic product and taxable income. Then where does the money come from. If you know you will not drown, why would you learn to swim?
What was stalin's quote about how communism and capitalism cannot coexist?
The nearest that I can find is: In 1913 he said: "Only under the reign of socialism can peace be fully established." However, he then follows this by saying: "But even within the framework of capitalism it is possible to reduce the national struggle to a minimum, to undermine it at the root, to render it as harmless as possible to the proletariat. This is borne out, for example, by Switzerland and America. It requires that the country should be democratised and the nations be given the opportunity of free development." http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv... And, in 1951 he was interviewed by the New York Times, Question: Do you consider a new world war inevitable? Answer: No. At least at the present time it cannot be considered inevitable. and...As for the Soviet Union, it will continue in the future as well firmly to pursue the policy of averting war and maintaining peace. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv...
What does it mean that "Under capitalism, man oppresses man. But under socialism, it's the other way around."?
Rockefeller Capitalism, Marxist Socialism and Lenninist Communism all suffer from the same delusion: Domination is a sustainable basis for a civilization.The clear alternative to all three was driven out of the academic literature in the early 1900’s, just as it’s implementation created the Californian economic miracle which allowed it to overtake its eastern rivals, settled 150 years earlier, and on vastly better quality land.Thus you have not heard of Georgism(Economic Democracy), and why it represents humanity’s escape from domination by humanity.We’ve got ourselves in a half-nelson, there can be no victory, until we implement Georgism, globally.You are not expected to believe this. But the only way for man to escape domination by man inherently extinguishes hereditary privilege, which is why it has not been allowed to exist anywhere significant.It’s the only future where we don’t go extinct, having destroyed the basis of our collective well-being, the once-human-friendly biosphere.~ How Land Barons, Industrialists and Bankers Corrupted Economics (html), Dierdre Kent 2016 article.What Money is: Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy (pdf), Warren Mosler 2010, Part 1.What Wealth is: Progress and Poverty (html, audio, pdf), Henry George 1879, esp intro, ch3, ch17.How we got to Now: The Corruption of Economics (pdf), Mason Gaffney 1994 p29-44. Prolog by Fred Harrison: “Who’s Afraid of Henry George?”(also pdf).For sincere and willing truth-seekers, this short list, free online, will not disappoint.[Edited for accuracy(1)]
Which is more Christian -- capitalism or socialism?
Capitalism. The Bible (both the Christian and Jewish) never advocates socialism. But both Christianity and Judiasm advocate social responsibility, never social justice, in order to help your fellow man. The purpose of capitalism is to serve your fellow man: Love your neighbor as yourself, nor for yourself. Business is suppose to be a mutually agreed transaction: Sell no harm!The correct interpretation of Christianity's version of capitalism is reading the Old Testament and primarily the New Testament Epistles (Acts - Jude, and Revelation 1-3). Application of these chapters to today's economy is the correct theological view of capitalism versus socialism: Capitalism should be the only form of economics to be used today.While one can learn from reading the Gospels how human nature works and other issues, the teachings of Jesus espoused in those books are for another time/era/age, not today. His teachings are for the Millenium, in Revelation 20.Socialism is the government forcing customers to side with who the government considers the best or right answer. The decision-making is taken out of our hands into an elite or select group. Government uses my money to spend it as IT pleases, not how I would spend it. That's force, and is incompatible with Christianity. It takes the personality responsibility AND accountability (to God) from one's hands and decision-making. Therefore, as an individual (and a government) I/we get no reward from God how the money is used to help our fellow man when the government decides.If I were to have 100% of my money (no taxes) and spent (or not spent) as my conscious dictates, I get the rewards as God outlines as a steward of his blessings. The purpose of work is to dignify earning a living. The purpose of charity is to give to those that may not earn enough (for food and clothing). Failing to give results in loss of rewards, hence the reason Jesus spoke of wealthy individuals trusting in their earthly wealth.A great book to read is "The Mystery of Capital" by De Soto. Shows how to use capitalism to encourage "all boats to rise."
Why do some think Christianity or new testament is for socialism?
While it does say "give to the poor" But being idle is something used in 2 thessalonians 3 chapter, which means "inactive, unemployed" To quote directly 2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” If you want the context, read the whole chapter 3. Its clearly ignorance believing Jesus is pro socialist/communist : 3
What was the meaning of Churchill's quote about capitalism?
Churchill said: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.Churchill was a virulent anti-communist and therefore did not like socialism either. His quote points out that with capitalism we do not share our blessings, i.e. wealth, but under socialism all that is shared is misery. So, he is taking a swipe at socialism even though he is also criticizing capitalism, albeit a little bit.
Is Jesus Christ a Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, Leftist, right-winger, or moderate?
In looking at the supposed teachings of Jesus...how he extolled over and over that the poor, sick, aged, and needy must be included, looked after and helped...then I would say he would be classified as a socialist.
What do socialists think of the statement, "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"?
Wouldn’t faze left socialists; most live comfortably in free-market systems.And it wouldn’t faze the far extreme—state communists. The “other people” had only the money the state allowed them in the first place.No, this dagger is aimed at the heart of social democracy, the ideology our progressive movement promotes. Social democracy was actually unique in all of socialism (and heavily scorned by the rest of state socialism) for deciding it wise to retain capitalism as its economic adjunct. As Karl Marx pointed out after Otto von Bismarck co-opted the social democrats’ agenda in the name of and to gain the people’s allegiance to Kaiser Wilhelm I, social democracy was destined to become the dictatorship of a bourgeois elite maintaining power by using “state aid” (the name for welfare benefits in his day) to produce a permanent underclass.John M. Keynes came along with an entire economics he designed to provide an intellectual rationale for social democracy, with the argument that taxation and regulation could be used to control more robust capitalist economies and produce significant funds that could be redistributed to the working class to provide them an even larger return on their labor than even communism promised.The question becomes, but does it provide as much for the working class as would unfettered capitalism. And the answer, no, is built in. Should social democracy ever eliminate poverty, it would eliminate its basis for existence. The entire intellectual basis for social democracy is coming up with unsolvable social problems to be handled—but not solved—by the political class.Maintaining such a politics basically boils down to thisIt’s a fine balancing act. The more money they take from people, the less is available for productive use, raising the misery index and disinclining people to vote for them. The less money they take from people, the more capitalism can be seen to work successfully without them. In short, the progressive problem is to keep taxation, regulation and redistribution right in the Goldilocks zone that keeps more than half the voting public feeling they are better off with them than without them.The least miscalculation leads to a situation, like we’re on the brink of now, in which the purchase of votes overwhelms the economy causing a major down-spiral in which they run out of the other people’s money essential to their continued elite status.