Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[temporal1]

Josh:
.. I don’t really want to argue with you that what I’ve dedicated my life and my family to is not a Homeowner’s Association.

This particular “failure to communicate” represents a now common problem between the secular and the faithful.

It first hit me when my grdaughter moved from Catholic elementary school to the next-door public school.
It was odd to witness teachers+admin attempt to appropriate Christian “principles” while removing Christ with surgical precision, never giving Him a word’s mention. It made me queasy.

This school has a large Jewish population. Those parents make sure their faith isn’t absolutely sidelined.
It’s a mixed school. Muslims and atheists are respected. If not celebrated. Christian children are told not to mention the Bible.

The deep belief now is: “we” can be as good as, or greater than, God. All with a few clever words.

- - - - - - -

HOAs are notorious for all kinds of problems.
i’ve experienced/witnessed a few. my daughter was president of hers for a few years. big headache.

13 COMMON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PROBLEMS AND HOW TO ADDRESS THEM
https://www.hoamanagement.com/homeowner ... -problems/

[Robert]

Is it helpful to define a term like:

* Socialism (Religious Communities) or ...
* Socialism (Common purse)

Or does that just muddy things?

I think it muddies the water of discussion. It would be like calling a church cake sale capitalism or a voted in church board democracy. While both have connections to those things, they really are quite different.

I hope my use of the terms individualism and collectivism has clarified more than confused. I do not actually see capitalism and socialism as opposites. A socialist organization can sell for a profit and be capitalistic. We see that on the world market often.

[HondurasKeiser]

It suggests more directly that Republicans aren't Christians. The Democrats were already suspect.

I think it suggests that Republicans, of whom some are Christians, have been taken in by the concept of Individualism, an idea that runs counter to Christianity but is perfectly consonant with economic Liberalism. One finds it incumbent to note though that Democrats too have been taken in by Individualism as well, only theirs is in the social realm. Both Democrats and Republicans are thoroughly satanic in their pursuit of freedom without constraints.

I vaguely remember from seminary an argument from Stanley Fish that modernity (i.e. liberalism) is the water we swim in and we don't even realize it just as a fish doesn't realize it's swimming in water.

That brings to mind this 1996 essay from Stanley Fish in First Things:

If you persuade liberalism that its dismissive marginalizing of religious discourse is a violation of its own chief principle, all you will gain is the right to sit down at liberalism’s table where before you were denied an invitation; but it will still be liberalism’s table that you are sitting at, and the etiquette of the conversation will still be hers. That is, someone will now turn and ask, “Well, what does religion have to say about this question?” And when, as often will be the case, religion’s answer is doctrinaire (what else could it be?), the moderator (a title deeply revealing) will nod politely and turn to someone who is presumed to be more reasonable. To put the matter baldly, a person of religious conviction should not want to enter the marketplace of ideas but to shut it down, at least insofar as it presumes to determine matters that he believes have been determined by God and faith. The religious person should not seek an accommodation with liberalism; he should seek to rout it from the field, to extirpate it, root and branch...liberalism rests on the substantive judgment that the public sphere must be insulated from viewpoints that owe their allegiance not to its procedures—to the unfettered operation of the marketplace of ideas—but to the truths they work to establish. That is what neutrality means in the context of liberalism—a continual pushing away of orthodoxies, of beliefs not open to inquiry and correction—and that is why, in the name of neutrality, religious propositions must either be excluded from the marketplace or admitted only in ceremonial forms, in the form, for example, of a prayer that opens a session of Congress in which the proposals of religion will not be given a serious hearing.

[Josh]

Indeed (that essay has influenced my thinking significantly over the past 9 years). My response has been to reject the assumptions of both socialism and capitalism.

The Bible says to help the poor so when I’ve encountered someone in need and I had money (and money would actually help them), I decided to make plans to help. Often doing so made no financial sense for me but I decided to believe the Lord would provide.

It turns out I have some skills other than money that are needed. One of them is navigating the rather complex health care system. Within my little community I have been able to do that well. It seems like a small thing but it’s much better for multiple to bear the burden of an illness than just 1 person.

I still have to live within the constraints modern society and classical liberalism imposes on us. That means proper accounting and filing taxes, but also means opportunities for government assistance (there are myriads of programs for employers, farmers, programs to help reclaim soil, Medicaid for people who can’t work due to an illness, the list goes on and on). I used to have a much more political-ideological view on these things. Now I view it as “being in the world but not of it”.

Most people I talk to think in classically liberal terms - of personal accumulation of wealth, of expecting people to be “responsible” for themselves. I have to translate what I believe into language they can understand.

There is a quiet revolution brewing of Christian people who wish to move past classical liberalism and live according to more catholic and orthodox Christian principles; one blessing is such people are congregating in a town an hour away from me. Their example is truly inspiring. I hope my legacy would be I brought the same example to my street and my block.

[Bootstrap]

I vaguely remember from seminary an argument from Stanley Fish that modernity (i.e. liberalism) is the water we swim in and we don't even realize it just as a fish doesn't realize it's swimming in water.

C.S. Lewis said that old books from different times were written with different presuppositions. They had the same problem we do - they did not realize what water they were swimming in either.

But if we compare our understanding to Christians from other times or places or cultures, we can at least see how Christianity has been understood in a variety of waters, which can help us get beyond our own biases.

[Szdfan]

I vaguely remember from seminary an argument from Stanley Fish that modernity (i.e. liberalism) is the water we swim in and we don't even realize it just as a fish doesn't realize it's swimming in water.

C.S. Lewis said that old books from different times were written with different presuppositions. They had the same problem we do - they did not realize what water they were swimming in either.

But if we compare our understanding to Christians from other times or places or cultures, we can at least see how Christianity has been understood in a variety of waters, which can help us get beyond our own biases.

It's one of the lessons I took from my experience with East German Christians who had often different understandings from what it meant to follow Christ from their Western brethren.

[Falco Knotwise]

The concept, maybe, but as soon as humans put it into practice, it becomes a top down authoritarian system. Someone has to decide for others. This moves us away from freedom of choice, of which is the foundational principle of faith in Jesus.

I am not saying that Socialism-in-practice isn't authoritarian or oppressive, rather that it's a logical countervail to Individualism. That is to say, if you don't want Socialism don't promote Individualism. As long as Individualism continues to grow and spread, so too will Socialism.

For a time, this was an interesting discussion.

I found this article interesting:

I say ... in full awareness of, and deeply appreciative of, how the principles of classical liberal economics are far more conducive to liberty, the rule of law, economic prosperity, and the preservation of the private realm and of civil society, than is the current economic alternative, that is, socialism, and its enlargement of the administrative state. (Yet) it remains the case that conserving the principles of liberal capitalism is conserving principles that were intended, after all, to destroy tradition, and this is something with which conservatives must grapple.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2023/05/88837/

My thoughts: that is because while liberalism does protect the private realm, yet it also forces all tradition into the private realm, making it of very little effect in the public realm which is simultaneously a severe fracturing of the spiritual life, imo.

Individualism protects the rights of the individual against the community. One atheist in a class of 30 is offended by Christian prayer .... out goes prayer. The heck with the community. The individual's rights must be preserved!

It is very destructive of tradition -- at least in the public sphere. I don't see how there's any denying that.

[Josh]

My thoughts: that is because while liberalism does protect the private realm, yet it also forces all tradition into the private realm, making it of very little effect in the public realm which is simultaneously a severe fracturing of the spiritual life, imo.

This is an excellent point, FK (and nice to see you posting here again). One of the contentions of the New Polity crowd is that Christianity and its practice should very much exist in the public sphere, not the private sphere, and indeed should be a rather loud witness against the commercial, governmental, academic, etc. institutions of the day.

[Ken]

I am not saying that Socialism-in-practice isn't authoritarian or oppressive, rather that it's a logical countervail to Individualism. That is to say, if you don't want Socialism don't promote Individualism. As long as Individualism continues to grow and spread, so too will Socialism.

For a time, this was an interesting discussion.

I found this article interesting:

I say ... in full awareness of, and deeply appreciative of, how the principles of classical liberal economics are far more conducive to liberty, the rule of law, economic prosperity, and the preservation of the private realm and of civil society, than is the current economic alternative, that is, socialism, and its enlargement of the administrative state. (Yet) it remains the case that conserving the principles of liberal capitalism is conserving principles that were intended, after all, to destroy tradition, and this is something with which conservatives must grapple.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2023/05/88837/

My thoughts: that is because while liberalism does protect the private realm, yet it also forces all tradition into the private realm, making it of very little effect in the public realm which is simultaneously a severe fracturing of the spiritual life, imo.

Individualism protects the rights of the individual against the community. One atheist in a class of 30 is offended by Christian prayer .... out goes prayer. The heck with the community. The individual's rights must be preserved!

It is very destructive of tradition -- at least in the public sphere. I don't see how there's any denying that.

Liberalism doesn't force tradition into the private realm. It simply says that in society with separation of church and state and free exercise of religion, the government should not be in the business of coercing religious practices or endorsing specific religions. So, in your example of school prayer, children have always been free to pray in schools. That was never at issue. There are student-organized prayers and bible studies at the school where I teach. It is perfectly fine and no one objects or has legal grounds to object. The only issue was coerced government-led school prayer. Or the government endorsement of a specific prayer.

Other than that, liberal society is full of traditions and there is nothing about liberalism that is opposed to tradition. Visit any secular liberal country in Europe and you will find that they are jam-packed with all manner of tradition: music, language, literature, food, art, architecture, dance, holidays, festivals, etc.

[Falco Knotwise]

My thoughts: that is because while liberalism does protect the private realm, yet it also forces all tradition into the private realm, making it of very little effect in the public realm which is simultaneously a severe fracturing of the spiritual life, imo.

This is an excellent point, FK (and nice to see you posting here again). One of the contentions of the New Polity crowd is that Christianity and its practice should very much exist in the public sphere, not the private sphere, and indeed should be a rather loud witness against the commercial, governmental, academic, etc. institutions of the day.

Great to hear from you again as well, Josh. Never heard of New Polity before. I went to newpolity.com to look around and have already found some very interesting articles.

This one here talks about how Pope Pius XI discussed the individualist/collectivist problem. What gets lost is the whole former social structure which he defined as "solidarity." I find this perspective very interesting.

https://newpolity.com/blog/capitalism-p ... -socialism