Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[HondurasKeiser]

It's an often-noted irony that much of The Satanic Bible anticipates the social and economic doctrines of modern-day Republicans in the USA.

This suggests Dems aren’t Christians ..

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.

[Josh]

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.

And it would appear that "socialism" and "capitalism" are really just two sides of the same coin; that is, the coin of classical liberalism. And hence most of what see around the world is a hybrid of "socialism" and "capitalism" anyway, such as "market socialism" or 中国特色社会主义 ("socialism with Chinese characteristics").

[Josh]

I live in a Christian community with a common purse, and then am part of a larger Christian church that shares and bears one another’s burdens.

None of us would ever use the word “socialist” to describe ourselves. Indeed, allowance for private ownership and even individual ownership of means of production is important to us. Means of production that are shared with each other or shared with the needy are done so voluntarily.

Amazing! How does this work? I'm fascinated to hear "common purse" - that's a bit different than "all things common" but still....
It's not socialism in a Marx sense. Voluntary socialistic purses is very much fine as there is nothing forcing you to be this way.

But I'm VERY curious how the common purse works.

It's pretty simple: you have a purse (or a cash box, or a bank account, or what have you). When one of you works and earns money, you deposit money into it. When there is a need, such as for food, clothing, or shelter, you pay for it out of that common purse.

I also practice "all things in common", although in practical terms, the things we hold in common often have uses specific to an individual, such as specific bedroom, or a specific house for a single person or a family, and so on. Because I live in a country that implements capitalism / market socialism, I structure how we hold things in accordance with how the governments ordains that people who live with a common purse and hold all things in common should do so.

The most important aspect is joint decision making with it clearly defined who makes decisions, which means sometimes my ideas are persuasive, but sometimes I have to yield to what the other community members want to do. This means we end up being involved in each other's lives. We also must bear one another's burdens. The most significant burden I find is not one involving money, but rather bearing one another's burdens as it relates to health or lack thereof.

[Ken]

I live in a Christian community with a common purse, and then am part of a larger Christian church that shares and bears one another’s burdens.

None of us would ever use the word “socialist” to describe ourselves. Indeed, allowance for private ownership and even individual ownership of means of production is important to us. Means of production that are shared with each other or shared with the needy are done so voluntarily.

Amazing! How does this work? I'm fascinated to hear "common purse" - that's a bit different than "all things common" but still....
It's not socialism in a Marx sense. Voluntary socialistic purses is very much fine as there is nothing forcing you to be this way.

But I'm VERY curious how the common purse works.

It's pretty simple: you have a purse (or a cash box, or a bank account, or what have you). When one of you works and earns money, you deposit money into it. When there is a need, such as for food, clothing, or shelter, you pay for it out of that common purse.

I also practice "all things in common", although in practical terms, the things we hold in common often have uses specific to an individual, such as specific bedroom, or a specific house for a single person or a family, and so on. Because I live in a country that implements capitalism / market socialism, I structure how we hold things in accordance with how the governments ordains that people who live with a common purse and hold all things in common should do so.

The most important aspect is joint decision making with it clearly defined who makes decisions, which means sometimes my ideas are persuasive, but sometimes I have to yield to what the other community members want to do. This means we end up being involved in each other's lives. We also must bear one another's burdens. The most significant burden I find is not one involving money, but rather bearing one another's burdens as it relates to health or lack thereof.

So what are the details?

Does everyone contribute the same monthly amount? Or same percentage (i.e. 10% of income) or does the contribution vary based on need and ability? Is it voluntary or mandatory?

How is it different from say a monthly or quarterly HOA assessment that generates a "common purse" for a neighborhood association from which things like street maintenance and landscaping are paid?

[Szdfan]

This suggests Dems aren’t Christians ..

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.

[Josh]

So what are the details?

Does everyone contribute the same monthly amount? Or same percentage (i.e. 10% of income) or does the contribution vary based on need and ability? Is it voluntary or mandatory?

I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about the concept.

Everyone contributes to the community according to their abilities and talents. This is how Hutterite communities function and how monasteries function.

Each person's needs are provided for, starting with essential needs (food, clothing, and shelter), and in turn more complex needs like medical needs. Often the "need" is not just money. For example, if someone has had a surgery, they might not be able to lift heavy objects for a while. They need support from others to help them with work tasks or day to day life tasks that might require heavy lifting.

Of course, needs vary. Children don't eat as much food as full grown adults. The shelter needs for families and single people are different.

How is it different from say a monthly or quarterly HOA assessment that generates a "common purse" for a neighborhood association from which things like street maintenance and landscaping are paid?

A rather key difference is that membership is entirely voluntary and nothing is taken from anyone by force. For some reason, Ken, I feel like you have a lot of trouble understanding this distinction.

[Ken]

A rather key difference is that membership is entirely voluntary and nothing is taken from anyone by force. For some reason, Ken, I feel like you have a lot of trouble understanding this distinction.

So is membership in an HOA. You can choose not to live in that community, many people do. But once you do voluntarily join, you agree to follow the community rules, same as with any church. Or at least any church that has rules and standards for membership and the will excommunicate or remove recalcitrant members. I recall a LOT of discussion here on this forum about "church discipline".

I was just curious how you come up with the amounts each person pays. Whether it is a fixed amount where everyone pays the same amount (like an HOA), a fixed percentage like a tithe, or something more variable and voluntary. And how much of each person's income is paid into the common purse. All of it?, half of it? five percent on average?

[Josh]

So is membership in an HOA. You can choose not to live in that community, many people do. But once you do voluntarily join, you agree to follow the community rules, same as with any church. Or at least any church that has rules and standards for membership and the will excommunicate or remove recalcitrant members. I recall a LOT of discussion here on this forum about "church discipline".

An HOA and a monastery are not remotely similar.

I was just curious how you come up with the amounts each person pays. Whether it is a fixed amount where everyone pays the same amount (like an HOA), a fixed percentage like a tithe, or something more variable and voluntary.

Monks in a monastery don’t pay anything. They do perform work to support the monastery as a whole. An example is the sisters at a nearby monastery who bake bread and conduct soup sales.

[justme]

I live in a Christian community with a common purse, and then am part of a larger Christian church that shares and bears one another’s burdens.

i was not aware that the Holdermans used a common purse.
apparently i'm learning something new.

shares and bears one another's burdens? yes, sure. that is pretty standard
and the Holdermans have been very good to us throughout the years. we aren't holderman, but they still have shared and born some of our burdens with us as a family.

[Josh]

I live in a Christian community with a common purse, and then am part of a larger Christian church that shares and bears one another’s burdens.

i was not aware that the Holdermans used a common purse.
apparently i'm learning something new.

I don’t know anything about “Holdermans”. Holdemans don’t necessarily have a common purse but do have voluntary mutual aid.

shares and bears one another's burdens? yes, sure. that is pretty standard
and the Holdermans have been very good to us throughout the years. we aren't holderman, but they still have shared and born some of our burdens with us as a family.

I’m glad to hear that; my experience with Holdemans is very similar to yours with Holdermans.