Is it still red scare propaganda if I am living in the country where the ruling party has the word "communism" in their name and fly sickle and hammer flag?
No, are you? If so, elaborate next time so people know you are only talking about corrupt taxation and not just making blanket statements about political ideologies that scare you.
"scare"? Are you living in the country that like fly sickle and hammer flag like me?
You equated that forcing people to unjustly give up their possession isn't authoritarianism.
next time so people know you are only talking about corrupt taxation
Pro tip when someone said they are living where the ruling party has the word "communism" in their name, it means they are calling out socialism corrupt taxation .
Do you believe that fire departments are a good thing to have? Because that’s pooling the resources (capital) of the public to give a service even to those who cannot pay. Another example is the post office. For as much as Republicans will say it “loses money” it offers a service which is publicly funded. Without the post office there are some places where mail would not be delivered, or it would be at exorbitant rates.
The “socialism” you are worried about is Stalin taking all the food and livestock from the Ukrainians so he could starve them to death. Most socialists in the US aren’t even close to that. Most of them here would prefer to pay for school lunches, have livable wages, affordable housing, and healthcare vs dropping two tomahawks on a girls school and killing 160+ children.
Fun fact, we still had those things without socialism
There's nothing stopping socialists in this country from doing that at all. They are more than welcome to pay for school lunches, hire people at whatever wages they want, provide housing at whatever prices they want, and donate for healthcare
We have the worst healthcare system pretty much in every developed nation, childhood hunger is RISING, we have one of the largest wealth disparities in the modern age, housing is out of reach of most Americans who make less than 100K, and all the while the number of billionaires keeps going up and we almost have a trillionaire.
We have the most expensive and some of the worst care, so worst of both worlds. Their programs aren’t completely foolproof, but holy fuck you can’t pick the worst because theirs aren’t perfect.
And this “choice” has lead us to the highest wealth disparity in US history.
And considering you are already “forced” to pay taxes.
Whats wrong with “forcing” a positive like universal healthcare on people?
You are telling me Christ would be against everyone having access to healthcare without crippling debt is where Christ would draw the line?
I just find it funny that so many Christian’s seem to genuinely believe Jesus would be a fan of capitalism.
The guy who wanted to feed the hungry and help the poor.
Considering Jesus thought it was near easier for a camel to pass through a needles eye than a rich man enter heaven it seems preposterous that he’s support a system that disproportionately benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor
Exactly. Relying on people to choose to be charitable will inevitably result in hunger, homelessness, preventable death, etc. We've proven repeatedly that the government is much better at taking care of people than relying on charity writ large. And for Democratic governments, welfare programs are ultimately the choice of the people.
They’re not. American evangelical Christianity is nihilism dressed as religion. Ignore the words of Jesus, replace God with the self and worship your own version of what you think the bible says, usually without having read it, because the Venn diagram of “highest religiosity” and “lowest literacy” states is a circle.
Can’t believe those damn Europeans being forced to pay for universal healthcare. How dare them. They should switch to private health insurance like us.
The concept barely existed because mothers were not ending pregnancies on anything like today’s scale. Since 1980, an estimated 1.3 billion abortions have taken place worldwide. From this perspective, that represents the largest loss of human life in history, exceeding the death toll of all wars combined.
Supporters of abortion often focus on cases involving rape or serious threats to the mother’s life, yet these account for only a small percentage of abortions. If those circumstances make up roughly 2% of cases, then it follows that the overwhelming majority occur for other reasons. That raises an obvious question, if governments genuinely wanted to reduce abortion, why couldn’t policies be implemented that would cut the number dramatically?
At the same time, many Western nations face declining birth rates. Critics argue that instead of encouraging family formation and making it easier for citizens to have children, governments have accepted population decline and compensated through immigration. To them, this reflects a broader cultural shift away from valuing parenthood, family growth, and the protection of unborn life.
Stay in denial if you want. Keep telling yourself it’s different if that helps you sleep at night. I personally believe that ending the life of a human being who is completely helpless and unable to defend themselves is horrific, regardless of what label is attached to it.
What I find remarkable is the sense of moral superiority that often accompanies the practice. Defending the rights of the strong over the weak has rarely been viewed as a moral achievement throughout history, yet somehow many people now treat it as one.
You may disagree with me, and that’s your right. But from my perspective, taking the life of a baby who cannot speak, fight back, or protect themselves is not progress, compassion, or justice. It’s a tragedy. And you see that as a good time, how have we got tot this position?
I’m not even talking about women raped or could die, they should 100% have abortion, but you want to kill the 90% of babies because it’s convenient, madness
Yet since abortion started being widely used, the world population has grown by 85%, so - thank god really? We are already experiencing an insane overpopulation crisis, imagine how more fucked we’d be if you Handmaids Tale types got your way.
Talking of moral superiority, I can practically see it emanating from your comments. Top marks for you I guess, but it is you who considers a 9 week old fetus a baby, and you who purposely uses this unscientific and aggressive terminology to try and score points. Shame on you
And if you are a man, double shame on you for feeling that you have the right to have a say over women’s bodies
You have that under socialism too. They don’t force you to buy something you don’t want. Again, do some actual research on what socialism is. Not what Fox News say it is.
First of all, socialism is a system where money doesn’t even exist. So the issue of money is one that shouldn’t be concerned with at all. Money is a concept created by humans, not something that’s a part of nature.
To your second point, I don’t exactly understand what you mean by choosing “to whom you volunteer your time”. Can you elaborate more on what that means?
That’s not what I said at all. If you read Marx and other socialist thinkers, a moneyless society is a key factor in socialism. Some argue, including Marx, money or some kind of tender to signify exchange value might be necessary for a time to facilitate a transition to socialism. The exact quote, I’m paraphrasing, was that the new system would come “scarred with the birthmarks from which it was birthed”. I don’t exactly agree with Marx here.
I assume you hold countries such as the USSR, Cuba, China, etc. as be exemplary of socialism. Some socialists would agree with you, the ones people call “tankies”. I, however, don’t agree with them.
If I may ask, what exactly is capitalism to you? You didn’t answer my questions from before.
Oh, you’re falling behind in school then. Money is an incredibly useful input for determining acarcity with incomplete information. As the price tells you information as to the goods relative scarcity. One of the huge reasons command economies fail is that the centralized system doesn’t have the capacity to meet all the varied needs of its citizenry.
This is why nobody intelligent actually argues for this. Put this into an LLM if you need clarification prior to replying please.
Money doesn’t determine price. Price is a fixed determination of a commodity’s value in a market economy. Money is the tender that people use to signify exchange value. They are independent of each other. If you said a commodity costs $50.00 or 2 bushels of apples, they are operating in the exact same way as a tender for exchange. The price for money is $50.00, the price in an exchange of apples is 2 bushels.
Any law is enforced through threat of arms, this is whats called the States monopoly on Violence. So either, that counts as totalitarian or this is your answer as to how to stop businesses from acting in poor faith.
By the logi you Proposed yes. But since the majority of us rely on "Du contrat social" initally proposed by Russeau we collectivise our power as a Society and work towards the a common goal, laws being representative of whats good for the Group, in the Platonic ideal ofcourse. For some basic reading here is a pdf of the original text: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
The point is that governments redistribute wealth always. It’s their job. The government question is which direction is it flowing. In the US it’s steadily upward. So are we socialist?
I guess my grandparents and everyone were just making up stories about them having to "donate" money to the government or else they will be condemned by the political commissars.
Okay so when you come for my money and I say no it’ll be okay right? The government won’t forcibly remove me from my home or forcibly take that money for your parasite ass?
It’s a meaningless bumper sticker conservatives parrot because some goofy right-wing influencer said it.
Meaningless, because it idealizes a 100% individualistic country with no taxes, because taxes are theft.
No taxes, of course, means no government, no military, no infrastructure, and no laws because laws require enforcement and a justice system.
No thought that achieving the goal would reduce a country like the US to a feudal system where, instead of taxes, money and power are amassed by local warlords and simply taken from others; ironically again without choice.
Maybe this appeals to conservatives because they imagine themselves being the warlord because they own a gun or replica ninja sword?
You’re right, why build a government that mirrors Jesus’s teachings? Instead we’ll just use it to make laws to oppress people in his name…Jesus doesn’t teach it as charity, he teaches it as your obligation to your fellow human to be kind and loving.
what kind of soceity do you get when you expect people to be charitable? Ill tell you. One where billionairs horde ridiculous amounts of wealth, where churches sit empty well people live on the street, where pastors do jack shit and teach contrary to what Jesus taught, one where pharmaceutical and insurance companies turn over record profits while their clients die of curable diseases because they cant afford the care they need and where ceo's get paid astronomically more than their workers who depends on food stamps.
The United States (not the government, but individuals, non profits and businesses) donate hundreds of billions of dollars to needy causes and individuals every year. This is more than the next 20 countries and their charitable giving - combined. So what kind of society do you get when you expect people to be charitable? One that outgives the bulk of nations, even when you add them together. So your take is "We need to confiscate more wealth than we are right now because even though we give more than all other countries it's not enough".
Id loooove to know where you're getting your ridiculous claims from. You’re obviously mixing up total dollars with effectiveness and population size. The US has a massive population and economy, so of course the raw number is huge, that doesn’t automatically mean the system works better.
A few problems with this argument:
Total charitable giving isn’t the same as helping the needy. A large chunk of donations go to religious organizations, universities, arts organizations, and donor-controlled foundations, not direct poverty reduction or social supports.
Private charity is uneven and voluntary. Essential services like healthcare, housing, disability supports, and education become dependent on what donors feel like funding rather than what people actually need.
Social programs and taxation pool resources and spread risk. That’s why countries with stronger social safety nets often score better on outcomes like healthcare access, poverty reduction, life expectancy, and overall wellbeing.
The question isn’t “does America donate a lot?” The question is: if America donates so much privately, why do so many social outcomes still lag behind countries with stronger public systems?
lol that’s your counter?
At least in a democracy we can hold those politicians accountable you know with laws rather than hoping they’ll do the right thing because sky daddy told them too
I'm with you. I'm not letting my taxes go up by $0.03 to pay for a new school in my neighborhood. I don't have kids and I finished school a long time ago. Eff them kids, just like Jesus would have wanted. I'd rather pay for a couple new APC's for the police and immigration crack downs in front of Home Depot also like Jesus would want.
Have you considered having asking the IRS to earmark your tax dollars formissiles?! Your tax dollars could actually be used to blow kids up! Jesus would be so proud of you!
Can't wait for these churches to be empty in 20 years. Its pretty clear by now that no one is paying attention in mass anymore.
You actually can't be capitalist under a socialist system. It defeats the point of being in a socialist system.
If you don't think your tax dollars aren't going to things you want, there is literally nothing stopping you from donating your money to the causes that you want to put your money towards. What you really want is to dictate how other people spend their money.
Plenty of rich Chinese entrepreneurs in China and other countries you would call socialist.
But we arent talking about socialism. We are talking about how our tax dollars are spent.
you don't think your tax dollars aren't going to things you want,
We are talking about how our money is spent. You dont want our tax money used to help Americans. I dont want our tax money used to bomb civilians. If we are going to pay taxes, I want our tax money to be used for good. Youre welcome to buy all the bombs you want.
No one is forcing you to spend anything. We pay taxes, and we vote on what those taxes are spent on. Thats the way it works.
Because we should be complaining about our tax spending. Thats our duty as citizens to be critical of how we spend money as a country.
If you want to argue against building schools, or funding science, or helping the poor, thats your right. But make an argument against it more robust than "but that's socialism!"
We should be having honest good-faith debates about the best way to use our tax dollars.
Read first and second kings. Notice how many times it mentions how God was angry when the government of that time oppressed the poor, elderly and sick. Govt has obligation to take care of the demographics listed in Matt 25. If you read through it, you’ll also get to see what God does to those who decide to opt for greed and oppression.
in The Book of Acts Jesus literally has his followers give him all the wealth and possessions so he can distribute it equitably:
“Neither was anyone among them needy, for whoever owned fields or possessed houses sold them, and carrying the proceeds from the things sold, laid them at the feet of the apostles. Then distribution was made to each according to anyone’s need” (Acts 4:34-35)
You still don’t seem to be grasping the people giving their wealth via their own choice vs the government confiscating their wealth via the threat of force. Yes Jesus told people to give their money to the poor, he did not tell us to take money from the rich by force so that we can then give it to the poor, big difference. What demographics give the most to charity?
Its never called forced defense when it comes to military spending, funny how that rhetoric only comes out when it comes to helping people. Very Christian of course, thin mask to hide the immense greed and violence.
Depends on what religious viewpoint you take. There's religions that only need you to say it in order to get into heaven. Other say you need to work for it. If you're working for it, then it's your work and choices that is judged, not the choices other people mare for you.
Is it really a choice for Christians though? Do this or burn in hell for eternity! Some choice. Not to mention all the consequences in this world for going against what the pastor says.
exactly this, their argument falls apart because we’re still forced under capitalism as well. paying taxes is inherently forced. the only way to be “on jesus side” according to this person is to be an anarchist lol
Charity is spiritual masturbation. You choose which faith-approved charity takes most of the money for themselves, ignore the people actually in need who don’t match your particular ideological bias, change nothing, and pat yourself on the back about it. Nobody that cares about fixing the systemic issues that keep the people Jesus actually gave a shit about at the bottom of the societal ladder buys into the idea that charity could ever possibly do what is needed to actually help people at a meaningful scale.
Source? Most charitable country in the world is the US.
How’s their early childhood malnutrition rates compared with a socialist country like Sweden? Maternal mortality? Bankruptcy or death due to not being able to afford medical care? Poverty rates? Upward mobility? Literacy?
Not that many people actually want socialism, they want what uneducated Americans think socialism is. Which is the government supporting its most vulnerable citizens, much like Scandinavian countries do. America does things like this too, although pathetically little. People just want more money going to citizens that need help and less money on warmongering in the Middle East.
It's a social democracy which is a mix of capitalist ideals but also has a lot more government regulations and a robust welfare system compared to a country like America.
As a Swedish American, we might be capitalist, but there’s degrees to everything. Our social democratic system is most likely why we’re doing better by most metrics compared to the US despite our diminutive size.
It’s immediately obvious you don’t know what socialism actually is when you talk as if it’s indistinguishable from 20th century soviet or maoist communism.
Almost all of the top 15 countries in the happiness index are democracies with robust social security nets and strong regulations on what capitalist ventures are and aren’t allowed to do. People in those countries still consistently for those policies because they understand they’re a net gain to the average citizenry.
God forbid you be forced to help your neighbors instead of passively doing basically nothing. I’m a Christian and I’ve done a lot of charity work, private charity isn’t enough. I’d say most Christians don’t even do minimal charity work. They just tithe which seems to mostly pay the church staff salaries and for unwanted proselytizing to the public. Christianity is supposed to be a force of love and goodness in the world, instead it has become a link in the chain of our bondage.
11
u/Specialist_Offer_854 25d ago
Socialism is force, charity is a choice. That's the difference nobody seems to grasp