Socialism and it's origins

In this past elections a lot was said about the socialist ideas of the eventual president elect…the spreading of wealth in particular.
H.L. Mencken wrote in 1926 about this, tracing socialism out of democratic ideals, or vices, is you go by this renegade aristocrat who wrote out of the center of the worldview he despised. He said:
“In 1867 a philosopher out of the gutter pushed that doctrine to its logical conclusion.”
That philosopher out of the gutter is Marx, of course and the work is Capital. Socialism, communism, according to Mencken, was the extreme, but logical conclusion to that deplorable doctrine called democracy.
Since when did the critics of Obama resemble H.L. Mencken?

The great majority, 3/4 by some counts, of americans are religious, in particular Christians, the proto-socialists/communists that Mencken speaks of. Yet it is now them, in many instances, railing against socialist ideas which were not the invention of Obama but of their own Messiah. The thing is that it is usually socialist that have taken Jesus seriously.
As Weber noted, Capitalism, or anti-socialism, is rooted in a particular brand of Christianity, that in my opinion is less about Jesus and more about Yahweh, or the Potter. In this view some are made poor by God and are meant poor by God. By contrast, those in the opposite track are also there by divine fiat. Everything is then according to God’s perfect plan- why bother with it? Social action is action against the Potter. All is well and His hand guides the dialectical extremes of society.
The conservatives launching attacks on Obama forget to test their criticism for consistency. If you oppose socialism, handouts, etc, that is fine, provided that you have beliefs that match it. This is not the case. With little variation, conservatives are pro-life. What matter is quantity of life, not quality. Babies are born, but where do they go? What happens when God’s mighty hand fails to hand out justice? Or when we call whatever happens to be God’s justice? People living in shacks, out of work, or worse, “working” poor, or working our way to bankarupcy because we are crippled by medical bills-- also regulated by the Hand of God?
All this humanity is brought to life with no provision for it’s future and so life itself is impovered, while a section of that humanity, well situated, benefits from the surplus in cheap labor, cheap life, expanding the God-ordained gulf between man and his “neighbor”? Nay, not even his neighbor, but a pot made for ignoble purposes by God himself. Why then should not the graced treat the ungraced as God does?
Do I support socialism? Not at all, but it bothers me to see so-called Christians criticism what is in fact a christian virtue which is to care for one’s neighbor, to help the poor. this they have made into a dirty vice and tie it with the vices of communism. Who here has lived in a socialist state? I have and though I find fault with them, I do not outright condemn the idea nor blindly sing the virtues of capitalism as if it was the clear truth which one should follow. Secondly I dislike the pursuit of more life on this state but also the pursuit of less responsibility for what happens to that life. If you support life because of the teachings of Christianity then you can also support socialist ideals based on the same scriptures that value life.
John McCain ran on the premise that instead of spreading the wealth he wanted to make everyone wealthy. Where the hell did he get this rosy view of capitalism? Capitalism is competition where one ends up wealthy and another poorer. Capitalism, in it’s purest of forms fails because sooner or later rampant predation runs out of prey. Socialism is not better because it eventually runs out of money to give out, wealth unequality drives the early interprise but once an equilibrium is reached it is forced to become a predator against other nations as it cannot prey on itself anymore. What is a third option is a capitalist state that sponsors socialist measures, thus prevention the loss of prey, the loss of the customer, the consummer within it’s land. Of course, the pure capitalist has found in out-sourcing a fourth way, but this way is not conductive to a state and that is a goal for both capitalist and socialist sponsors.

The economic collapse cost John McCain his chance at being elected, but not because he was too stupid to handle the crisis but because he was too much of a maverick in the eyes of his voter base, the conservatives, in how he wanted to fix the economy. Freeze all spending except for veteran benefits-- sounds like socialism-- social security benefits–more socialism-- support a bailout for wall street-- isn’t that a handout?-- When he said that he was suspending his campaign to address the crisis what he did in fact was suspend his chances to win his core-base–which in the end was not willingly his, as they would have preferred someone less mavericky. People voted for McCain out of spite for Obama or decided not to vote at all.

Last, I swear, I get to Mrs. Palin. Clearly she is W. Bush with lipstick. But here is the irony. She is a conservative. She has a child with a handicap. She is pro-life, so she did not decided to give birth to the child but simply was bound by principle to have the child. Lucky for the baby, he has been born into a wealthy family so he does not need a socialist state in order to survive the principle of pro-life. What about those other children not so lucky? Of course, some conservatives don’t mind giving the victims of pro-life principles a handout–I say “victim” because they have no say in the matter. Even as an adult, under the pro-lfe principle I could not choose to end my own life either-- but what about other health issues? Other “handicaps”, some that do not even have anything to do with health? Some of us will grow old and have a retirement set aside to live off, some will move in with their grown up children and some, without a social initiative like Social Security, will die like dogs by the side of the streed in old age, a cog, a pot, ignoble and spent by those made for nobler purposes. The irony? We live in a semi-socialist, semi-capitalist state. We have Social Security, at least for now. That means some will live on the backs of younger men, whether of this land or of some other, god-forsaken land.

You make two completely erroneous connections here:

First, that Jesus was a socialist. There is a HUGE difference between charity, which Christians advocate, and the forceful confiscation and redistribution of wealth via the state apparatus, which socialists advocate. One is peaceful and voluntary, the other is coersive and violent.

Second, that capitalism involves one person “getting rich while another gets poorer.” Wealth and capital accumulation are not zero-sum games. Capitalism involves voluntary transactions - both parties benefit from trade. Even the average “poor” person in the United States would be considered wealthy by most standards.

It is state intervention that enriches one person at the expense of another, not the free market. The government steals wealth from one person, namely the person who earned it, and gives it to another. Contrast this with a (true) capitalist society where trades are based on the consent of both parties.

You are confusing charity with socialism and capitalism with corporatism.

Welcome to the board mbburch, I couldn’t have said it better myself. If I could do just one thing, get across to most people what you wrote that I put in bold, I would die a happy, fulfilled man.

Only if you accept a gross caricature of socialism as a political, sociological and philosophical project.

How is the characterization a gross one. Is socialism not “a political, sociological and philosophical project” enabling the concentration of power under a double standard sett up elite over the rest of us the rest of us? Instead of wealth envy, we should be advocating the legal re-equalization of the elite.

Hello mbburch:

— You make two completely erroneous connections here:

First, that Jesus was a socialist. There is a HUGE difference between charity, which Christians advocate, and the forceful confiscation and redistribution of wealth via the state apparatus, which socialists advocate. One is peaceful and voluntary, the other is coersive and violent.
O- From Book of Acts 5: “But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; 2with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3‘Ananias,’ Peter asked, ‘why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us* but to God!’ 5Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it. 6The young men came and wrapped up his body,* then carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter said to her, ‘Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price.’ And she said, ‘Yes, that was the price.’ 9Then Peter said to her, ‘How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.’ 10Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things.”
I don’t see anything more coercive or violent than death.

— Second, that capitalism involves one person “getting rich while another gets poorer.”
O- It is what it is.

— Wealth and capital accumulation are not zero-sum games. Capitalism involves voluntary transactions - both parties benefit from trade.
O- Explain poverty, and it’s development.

— Even the average “poor” person in the United States would be considered wealthy by most standards.
O- But stuck in America the poor person is poor by the only standard that matters to him/her.

— It is state intervention that enriches one person at the expense of another, not the free market.
O- Social Security, for example, is about enriching the elderly? Universal healthcare as well?

— The government steals wealth from one person, namely the person who earned it, and gives it to another.
O- How did he earn it? Explain that little bit.

— Contrast this with a (true) capitalist society where trades are based on the consent of both parties.
O- The poor have nothing to trade other than themselves and the elderly don’t even have that. A pure capitalist society eventually has persons who have no products to exchange.