Part 2 of 2
Bob wrote:
The reality is, no system is perfect. ← Ya don’t say. → But the idea that capitalism alone “lifts people up” while any alternative inevitably leads to oppression is a historically ignorant oversimplification. The real discussion should be about how to build economic systems that prioritize human well-being over limitless corporate profit.
Bob, have you ever met the Boogie Man’s cousin? His name is Strawman. That’s exactly what ^this^ is. At no point did I ever say that capitalism “alone” or “limitless corporate profit” was the way to go. I honestly don’t care where your society falls on the spectrum of ultra-capitalistic and ultra-communistic as long as it’s there because of the will of the people. Protecting the people’s freedom is, to me, far more central to Western civilization than capitalism. Allow the people to choose, and over time they will select the elements of capitalism that suit them best and the elements of socialism that suit them best, and that’s as close as you’re ever gonna get to your perfect utopia where no one suffers. To perfectly level the economic playing field–perfectly–requires the strong hand of a dictatorial ruler to force or coerce the people into paying their “fair share” to the poor and needy. Even Marx understood this when he coined the term “temporary dictatorship of the proletariat”. The thing I never understood about this is how the hell would a dictatorship ever be temporary–like power hungry mad men are ever going to give up their control when they’ve served their purpose–a real ball drop on Marx’s part. This is why I feel compelled to attack communism as both an economic and a political system. Unlike capitalism, it is intricately intertwined with power–it depends on it–on a government, on a dictator–and so I cannot separate it from politics. Capitalism, on the other hand, can be treated as merely an economic model, and can be conceivably distinguished from whatever political system oversees it (look at China). Not so with communism. So while the opposite of communism may be capitalism, I can’t help but think it’s also the opposite of democracy and republicanism. So I attack communism in opposition to democracy, to the will of the people, and not so much in opposition to capitalism.
Bob wrote:
One of the most glaring examples of how fundamentalist Christianity and Christian nationalism fail to uphold human dignity, social justice, and mutual care is their stance on healthcare—particularly their opposition to universal healthcare in the U.S.
← I’ve never hear that as a quintessentially Christian talking point. A conservative one, sure, but it’s not rooted in Christianity. Sure conservatism tends to go hand in hand with Christianity, but that particular stance comes more from conservatives wanting government to stay out of their lives. →
Many Christian nationalists and fundamentalists claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, yet they oppose policies that ensure healthcare for all. The Gospels emphasize healing the sick without charge (Matthew 10:8), yet the very people who claim to be defenders of “Christian values” argue against healthcare access for the poor ← Maybe they opposed government’s role in healthcare, wanting to leave it to the people and the Church → , calling it “socialism.” In reality, their policies lead to suffering, medical bankruptcy, and preventable deaths—direct contradictions of Christ’s teachings on compassion.
← I was once shown some stats by Eric_the_Pipe (remember him?) that the Church in the US donates more to the sick, hungry, homeless and needy than liberal or secular charitable organizations. How accurate it was, I don’t know, but it challenges the widespread misconception that if the government does it do it, no one will. (Damn if I can remember the source but it was in my thread Reforming Democracy)–>
Jesus explicitly calls for kindness to the stranger (Matthew 25:35-40), yet Christian nationalists push for cruel immigration policies ← Now that is a blatant lie and you knew it. → , mass deportations ← Of criminals, rapist, murderers, spies, terrorists, and gang member. Not gonna shed any tears any time soon. → , and the dehumanization of migrants ← How is it dehumanizing to prevent immigrants to enter the country illegally? → . The separation of families at the border ← Which the Trump administration doesn’t do. → , the caging of children under policies supported by many Christian nationalists ← You should see Obama’s detention camps! → , and the justification of these actions using scripture (Romans 13 taken out of context) show a stark departure from the ethos of mutual care.
← Like I said, I don’t think any of these have to do with Christian policies but practical and political ones. And the cruelty of the children in cages should be judge on their treatment and their level of happiness and health, not their living conditions which are just a matter of practicality and budget. What’d you expect? A 5 star resort? →
Many fundamentalist Christians support policies that favour the ultra-rich while opposing social safety nets for the poor, despite Luke 6:24 condemning the rich who hoard wealth and Acts 2:44-45 describing the early church as one that shared everything in common. The prosperity gospel, embraced by many within this movement, directly contradicts biblical teachings on humility, justice, and the dangers of wealth.
← Before one judges one on their support of this or that policy, one must understand why and what they expect the outcome to be. Bill Gates, for example, donated millions (billions?) to education, attacking climate change, animal rights and alternate food sources to meats. Donating to Microsoft therefore could be a sign of support for these causes, all of which come back to the poor and needy. Then there’s Elon Musk, using his wealth and the success of his businesses to create electric vehicles, provide StarLink service to the victims of hurricane Helene, help people recover brain disabilities with Neuralink, and not to mention buy Twitter in order to protect free speech (which, believe it or not, benefits to poor and needy). Steve Jobs donated $50 million to Stanford Hospital for a children’s medical center, 10’s of millions to combat HIV and AIDS, helped create the Seva organization to help blindness, and generally enforced his policies at Apple of always creating environmentally friendly products. →
Christian nationalism actively works to restrict the rights of non-conformist individuals and women, often justifying discrimination under the guise of “religious freedom.” From forcing childbirth on rape victims to opposing protections against discrimination, these policies inflict suffering while contradicting Christ’s emphasis on love and justice (John 13:34).
← That one’s funny, as these are perfectly inline with Christian beliefs and value. Every life is sacred, according to them, even that of an unborn child in the womb of a rape victim. And anti-discrimination was never a part of the Christian ethos. Putting the sexes in their place–both women and men–was (is) seen as the sexes having their proper role to play in society, no one being worse than the other, no one being “inferior” and the other “superior”. Men go out to work, women take care of the home and the children. It may have been a bit too generalized, failing to recognize the nuances from one women to another, or one man to another, nuances that could mean the man/woman in question would be best placed in a non-traditional role in society, but it certainly wasn’t anti-Christian. ← Not that I agree with this view by any stretch of the imagination but if your attack is on Christianity, this one is misplaced. →
Many Christian nationalists in the U.S. are staunch supporters of war, gun culture, and authoritarian policing ← Police by definition are authoritarian. → . Instead of the turn the other cheek ethic of Jesus (Matthew 5:39), they embrace an aggressive, punitive worldview that disproportionately harms marginalized communities. The alignment of Christian nationalism with aggressive foreign policy and domestic militarization reflects a betrayal of peace and reconciliation.
← This depends. If you read some of Christ’s parables, he makes the point that turning the other cheek is supposed to serve the purpose of changing your enemy’s heart, of ending the tit-for-tat back-and-forth retaliation strategy that usually just escalates tensions and the brutality of war. (See the parable of the Two Debtors.) If the act of turning the other cheek, however, simply makes you vulnerable to an enemy who would exploit your passivity and destroy you, the “turn the other cheek” strategy is not a good one and would probably lead to your own demise. →
So, you can see that at every level—economic justice, human rights, compassion for the marginalized—Christian nationalism fails to embody the ethical core of Jesus’ teachings. Instead, it serves as a political weapon to justify exclusion, oppression, and a hierarchy of power that benefits the privileged few.
All my arguments above notwithstanding, my question to which this was a response was geared towards your sudden switch from talking about religion in general to Christianity in specific. Too reiterate, you said: “Many religious traditions have long recognized [the need to raise people up Maslow’s hierarchy], portraying their prophets and messianic figures as champions of human dignity, social justice, and mutual care. A Christianity that fails to embody this ethos…is not living up to its own professed values.” Why a Christianity that fails to embody this ethos? Why not religion in general? Why the sudden switch to the official religion of the West? I’ll tell you why. You want to villainize the West at the expense of ignoring similar shortcoming of the religions of other parts of the world (God know there’s much to criticize about Islam, but stoning rape victims just for being rape victims pales in comparison to wanting to own a gun, right?). Religious hypocrisy is nothing new our the world, not just in the West.
Bob wrote:
Once more, your critique is based on several flawed assumptions, particularly about human nature, the West’s moral standing, and the notion that any critique of capitalism must necessarily advocate for Marxism.
← Critiques of capitalism don’t have to advocate Marxism, but they almost always do (and in your case, it most certainly does Mr. Closet Case Marxist). →
Your criticism assumes that cooperation and competition are mutually exclusive ← I suppose they don’t have to be, but do explain. → , but human societies have always exhibited both. Cooperation is not about eliminating competition; it’s about ensuring that competition does not become destructive or exploitative. Even in capitalist economies, businesses rely on cooperation—within firms, between supply chains, and through regulations that prevent monopolies. The idea that humans are inherently selfish to the point that cooperation is impossible ignores historical examples of communal and cooperative societies that have flourished ← I never said humans were inherently selfish (though I would say they are largely selfish). → , from Indigenous societies to modern cooperatives and social democracies.
← I know, and I agree. This is all a consequence of allowing Western civilization to learn from past mistakes. In the past, families had to work 16 hour days, subject themselves to inhumane conditions that were deleterious to their health, and even bring their children into the workforce. But as a society of free citizen who could voice there concerns and demand change, laws were put into place–child labor laws, 8 hour work days, rights to work in a hazard and health friendly work environment–and we overcame these deficiencies. Only in the West is this possible. →
Likewise, the assumption that people will always seek to exploit cooperation is an argument for governance, not against cooperation itself. The goal is to create systems that prevent unchecked exploitation, not to abandon cooperation altogether.
← Again, I agree. My point was only that, with a large enough population (like billions), there are bound to be at least some who see peace and cooperation as an opportunity for exploitation, but certainly if a society has some form of government and police force to keep these individuals in check and exact repercussions when they get out of line, you aren’t quite at the point where everyone can hold hands and sing kumbaya, and society will be split into factions–those who support (or want to be) those who exploit and those who don’t, and the government will have to engage in some form of “crack down” on those who threaten the intended order. And given that this is human nature, it will be awfully difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at Marx’s final stage of a stateless, cashless society where everyone, forever, only ever cooperates. →
Saying that no society has met the ideal of universal human dignity does not mean that striving for it is pointless. ← Yes! I total agree. I just think it’s about time we abandoned Marxism as the path there. → By that logic, no moral progress is worth pursuing because perfection is unattainable. ← Not if we have examples of societies actually making their way there, like the West in my opinion, but we shouldn’t make blind leaps just because we’re overtaken by the delusion inducing spells of zealotry and dogmatic ideology. That’s just scary. → If the West is doing better in some respects, that’s not a reason to dismiss critiques ← Of course! → —it’s a reason to push it to do even better. The West has undoubtedly improved living standards within its borders ← THANK YOU BOB!!! → , but often at the expense of the Global South through economic exploitation, resource extraction, and political interference. ← And I could get behind putting a stop to this. There was a time, after all, when the West (or at least America) didn’t do this and thrived just as fine. → The real question isn’t whether the West is better than Somalia—it’s whether the West is upholding its own professed values of justice, equality, and democracy.
← Well, sure, if you judge it on moral ground, but I’m talking about the living standards of it’s people. Would you want to live in Somalia? →
“Restoring the West” vs. a different system is a loaded question. It assumes that “the West” had an ideal past that must be restored. ← Or ideal principles is was supposed to live by. → But which period of the West’s history should we return to? The 1950s, with its racial segregation and McCarthyism? The 19th century, with rampant colonialism and worker exploitation? The feudal era? Every period in Western history had both virtues and deep injustices. Rather than “restoring” an imagined golden age, the focus should be on evolving toward a system that actually embodies justice, democracy, and human dignity.
← Again, I agree (seems to be happening a lot lately
). A couple things: 1) The West, over the long haul, seems to be on a perpetual path of improvement. The injustices it committed in the past no longer happen to any degree even remotely to its past. And it will continue to improve. We just require patience. 2) The philosophy of MAGA isn’t that we should return to a past state (at least not in my interpretation), it’s that if you look at the state of America lately, it seems to be in a state of decline–the good things it can boast about are getting worse and the bad things it should improve on are also getting worse. There was a point in American history when she was at her best–that’s not today–and the MAGA movement is about restoring the good things about that time without restoring the bad things. Trump, for example, seems to think the 1950s were that time–great economy, a world superpower on the global stage, maximized freedom for it’s citizens, respect and admirations from others around the world, making leaps and bounds in technology, etc.–but it was also a time when women were confined to the home (not legally but through social pressure) expected to be good house wives and mothers, civil rights for blacks and other minorities weren’t yet recognize or written into law, homosexuals were marginalized and shunned by “good Christians”–but MAGA means bringing back the good things without the bad. At least in my interpretation–not necessarily Trump’s or any other conservative–for the “greatness” of the past need not depend on the coexisting “badness” of the past. America is proud of its leaps and bounds over social injustices–its overcoming slavery, universal suffrage for women, the Civil Rights Act–the problems these fixed aren’t things it wants to bring back nor things it sees as what made it great at one time. If this is the way America brings itself back to the “good ol’ times” it will accomplish what you espouse–in your words “evolving toward a system that actually embodies justice, democracy, and human dignity.” →
This does not mean endorsing Marxism wholesale, nor does it mean rejecting every aspect of capitalism. The issue is not whether capitalism or socialism as abstract theories are good or bad, but how economic and political systems can be structured to better serve the common good. Many countries, like those in Scandinavia, have blended markets with strong social protections, proving that the choice isn’t between unregulated capitalism and Soviet-style communism.
← Right, and as I said above, this is fine as long as the people vote on it. And it helps if we’ve had examples of it across the world and through history–which, according to you, we have in Scandinavia and the Nordic countries. →
Your criticism boils down to a defence of the status quo by setting up strawman arguments—suggesting that cooperation means naïve utopianism, that no society is perfect so we shouldn’t aim higher, and that any critique of capitalism is necessarily Marxist. In reality, the challenge is not about picking a binary option but about designing systems that balance economic dynamism with social responsibility.
That’s not true (though I’ll admit I’m guilty of levelling arguments along those lines). In truth, I’ve rarely come across a leftist who doesn’t hold a fierce disdain for the West and doesn’t embrace Marxism, and you sure took your time to make it clear that that’s not necessarily the stance you’re taking. Just don’t tell me you think the world ought to try a “different kind” of Marxism–like it just wasn’t done right the first time, like we just need to tweak this or that aspect of the Marxist model and we’d be sure to get it right–ignoring the countless times that’s been tried in the past resulting in utter failure. But if you’re talking about a whole different system that leads to the same goal (a cashless, stateless, mutually cooperative and supportive community that, through their labors (or by some mechanism), makes life comfortable and happy for as many people as possible), I’m all ears. You just need to demonstrate (almost to the rigor of Iambiguous’s ultimate demonstration that all rational men and women are obliged to agree with) a path from here to there with all the nitty-gritty painstaking details such when when people look at it, they get the impression that it just might work. And like I said before, Marxism isn’t it.
Bob wrote:
At this point, I think I have made my point ← And then some → , and the post is long enough.
You’ll have more to say. 