Sunday, March 12, 2006
My Politics (and Religion)
It’s nearly state election time at the moment in Illinois. I was listening to a debate of local Republican candidates on the TV the other day. I was thinking how could any God fearing Christian ever vote for a right wing party, such as the Republicans or the Conservatives? In the Book of Acts, Luke reports believers sharing their possessions and talks about equality. Indeed it is these same passages that appear in Karl Marx’s teachings. Party’s that reduce taxation only increase the gap between rich and poor, whatever they say their motivations are. Taxation should proportionally increase with income in my view. The money should be spent wisely on education and healthcare. The welfare state systems of Europe creak at the seams but echo the sentiments of God far more closely than anything else I have seen. You may have guessed my politics are extremely left wing. Communist states have proven not to work in the past, but I put that down to the fallen nature of man, in the corruption, intolerance and state control rather than the pure idealism. Free market socialism for the common man works for me every time. This is a topic that interests me no end, and I would gratefully value any comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
community is a wonderful thing. to me the question is 'how big' should the community be? a family? a few families? millions of families? a group of people who have something in common with each other other than having descended from the same egg/sperm?
in my view, there are pros and cons of all political regimes.
i can't say that i would be able to live under marxism, i like the idea of a 'performance-related standard of living' too much. a 'performance-related standard of living' works well in a 'global free-market economy' (if that is what it is), provided that we measure 'performance' in a God-fearing way. the problem arises when we exclude certain people-groups because they cannot 'perform' according to our 'measure' of performance. these people then become isolated, or 'charity cases' who are, at best, excluded from our society, or, at worst, humiliated.
im not an economist, but i think that right-wing methodology generates more money centrally. but money is not evil. God said that money 'is the root' of all evil.
i know that if we lived under marxism, i doubt that there would have been sufficient 'economic agitation', or sufficient use of the 'economies of scale', to come up with things like 'ultrasound' technology that can do predictive diagnoses to save unborn children. similar technology was used to make sure that my wife and boy were ok when he was born. (although im sure it was God who but breath in his lungs!)
as for taxation, etc. well, God told his people years ago what to expect from living in a kingdom (1samuel8) so i guess that is par for the course.
it would be nice to harness the pros from all regimes, but unfortunately this is impossible.
i guess the key is to make the most of what we've got :)
I'm always amazed at how there can be a single Chrisian that seems to make excuses for Communism...."Communist states have proven not to work in the past, but I put that down to the fallen nature of man, in the corruption, intolerance and state control rather than the pure idealism." I've heard this in the past. If only the socialist state wasn't run by corrupt men - well, it is. There's no fixing the fall of man unless everyone gets saved. Not going to happen. Eventually, under a socialist system, the market collapses in favor of another system that allows it to thrive. Only way to fix that would be to have only socialist systems all around the world. Which scares me to death.
It's clear that you're passionate about your ideas, but I ask you this - if you believe we should share our possessions - How much did you pay in taxes last year (as a percent or $) and how much did you give to the poor (as a percent or $)? I'm a far right wing Christian Republican and I'd be interested to know how we stack up.
"how could any God fearing Christian ever vote for a right wing party" - it's funny, I think the same about God fearing Christian that can vote Democratic.
First of all God says that it's the love of money that is the root of all evil, not money itself. I like money, it buys things.
Second I think if the whole world got saved that would be fantastic on one level, but for what we are talking about still not be the ideal. We only get truly saved after the rapture and tribulation when we meet Him in the air, and so at present we are still in a semi-fallen state. So the decision making process of all christians is still flawed.
I'm not saying I'm a marxist, I'd just like a sensible approach to taxation. Marx didn't recognise the church did he? Maybe I should have phrased my comments better. I favour a higher level of taxation especially amongst the better off to fund the poor in the world. When we tax less and leave it up to the individual to decide how much to give away and to whom they always keep far too much for themselves and are very parochial in to whom they give. It seems far more sensible for someone else to make that decision for them. For the record last financial year I gave 10% of my gross annual to the church and 30% to the government in tax, and goodness knows what else in sales tax, I hope they did something wise with it! Europe spends a lot of its tax dollars on free health care for the majority, I like that idea.
I don't have time to really ponder what you said yet. But I'd sure like to go camping with you for a weekend and dialogue while the trees clap their hands to Almighty God. You're the first one I've met on the other side that I thought I could live in peace with and have unity and brotherhood. This "democracy" thing is a lie in my opinion. We don't get to vote in God's Kingdom, except for Him. And it seems pretty clear to me from Scripture and from my own nature that I do a pretty poor job of choosing rightly. We humans in general are SELF centered, and the only total "freedom" that can be found is when we are completely "enslaved" to Jesus Christ (to quote Paul in many epistles). When Messiah sets up his millenial kingdom, it works because "He rules them with a rod of iron" and He's benevolent. Not at all a "politically correct" viewpoint, I know.
Hey sputnik, This is a bit extreme, but here is the communist theory:
According to its rules, the Communist Party is;
"guided by the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism."
But this is far from being a fossilised set of ideas. Marxism-Leninism is a science, starting from the understanding that:
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
In their Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Marx and Engels analysed the development of capitalist society.
They showed that the dominant structures and ideas of society reflect the ownership, by a minority class, of the means of production (the machines, tools, materials, plant etc) and that social revolutions take place when that system of property ownership prevents the full development of society's productive forces.
Such a situation exists today with the contradiction between the narrow private ownership of industry and commerce by the capitalist class, and the vast and inter-related social process of production carried out by the working class.
In competition with each other, the capitalists squeeze as much surplus value (the source of profit) out of the workforce as they can, raising productivity, holding down wages and therefore worker's purchasing power, investing in ever greater capacity - and producing commodities which periodically cannot be sold above their cost i.e. at a profit.
The result is over-production, cut backs, redundancies and the destruction of productive forces.
This contradiction between capitalist profit and greed on one side, and public consumption and need on the other, ensures that capitalism is a system built on insecurity, poverty, misery and crisis.
It is a contradiction which can only be resolved by abolishing capitalism, and building a socialist society based on social ownership and planned production.
Lenin creatively applied Marxism to the conditions of his time, when he analysed imperialism as the parasitic and moribund 'highest stage of capitalism', with economic and political power in the hands of enormous monopolies and cartels, whose struggle for the re-division of the world led to conflict and war.
He emphasised the need for the working class and its allies to take political power, guided by a revolutionary party and creating their own form of popular working class rule.
As the world has developed, so also has the science of Marxism-Leninism. And, as with other sciences, its theory is put to the test every day. Life continually throws up new issues to be addressed, and new questions to be answered.
Such a relationship between theory and practice ensures that obsolete ideas are discarded and new insights and approaches developed.
The capitalist world is dominated by transnational corporations (TNCs or multi-national companies), whose interests are promoted by their respective states. The rich get richer as billions of people go without adequate food, shelter, clean water or health and education services.
The capitalist monopolies and their political representatives put profit before people and before the earth's environment. Capitalist exploitation and imperialism intensify inequalities of race and gender.
The need for popular resistance and class struggle, for the working class to take state power in fact, is as great as ever.
Hey Sputnik, your name reminds me that the Soviets pioneered space travel! Not all bad.
.. although in this instance, sputnik was a humourous name given to me by neighbour, because it sounds (loosely) like my surname!
ok dude, i've read the first few paragraphs of the thesis (too tired to read the rest right now).
i agree with the diagnosis, but not the prescription.
im not an economist, but my understanding of the 'free market economy' in the uk (where i live)is that businesses trade, while 'the state' has all of the 'measures' in place to track the flow of money/stock/labour/whatever and then sets national taxes so that the thriving industries generate the most tax, and then re-distribute it through schemes to ensure that those who 'cannot look after themselves' are 'looked after'.
we like to think that we know what poorer people than ourselves like to spend their money on. in my experience i have been quite surprised. i know people who will spend money on their mobile phones when they havent paid their heating bills!
mixed classes can certainly live together in harmony, but that doesnt mean that they 'hang out' together. different classes have different values.
Trying to get my head round it myself. Certainly think Lenin's arguments are poorly put together and a bit emotional. While agree with some of Marx's observations I don't agree with the cause. The economics of supply-demand means market forces should lead to a stable economy even if there are some periodic downturns with redundancies etc.
I would, however, suggest that this kind of social organisation would not necessarily stifle pioneering works and technological advancement, ie my point with the Soviet space program.
Sputnik, you sound like a swell chap, the sort of person I would enjoy a pint with sometime.
the way that i understand it is that the 'free market' environment is just that ie a market-place. the people who dominate the market are those who understand 'the rules of good business'. anybody who doesnt understand the rules is free to learn them, but it'll cost 'em! get it!
if you don't have a product, or provide a service, that people need or want, you need to convince them that they do. and this is where non-God-fearing businessmen fall down. in my mind, anybody who uses fear-tactics or bullying to get people to buy what they are selling, will have God to deal with.
some people don't have the confidence to ask for 'their true worth' in what they do (hence the escalation of a 'charity culture' where people use '3rd party causes' to beg, and then take their cut. while others whinge about 'their worth' when they are in declining industries that will no longer sustain, what was once, their worth.
in my experience, people in big corporations feel bullied when they havent been told the truth by their superiors.
i once did a consultancy role, to decrease the production costs associated with a certain automotive component. the production ops looked permanently ill and were constantly bullied by mgmnt. the guy who gave me the role wanted me to save them gbp100K in 6 weeks. we came up with a solution that would achieve the goal in about 9 months. the lads on the shopfloor said it was the first time, since the product was launched, that anyone had done anything useful to improve production. the boss offered me a permanent role. the lads then told me that the product had been running for 5 years, with the same problems from day one, and they were going to phase it out in 12months for it to be superceded anyway. i declined the job. who wants to work for a boss who cloaks the truth from you? the industry was changing and no-one had the balls to tell the workforce. got a phone call 6months later from one of the engineers who had been made redundant.
i guess this is why smaller businesses are more agile in a changing environment, ie less 'layers' between the customer and the 'engine room', so the 'engine room' can see when its ok to take a breather, and when to make hay.
back to the subject in hand. the reason why i think its better to develop technology where state and business have clear boundaries, rather than through communism, is because technological advancement requires 'business risk' ie you can pump endless time and money into research and development for something that may not work. in the event of this happening in the 'free market', the business may just fold, but the state keeps people fed, warm and educated (assuming that the measures are correct). under communism, surely everybody has been part of the business risk, therefore everybody suffers from the failure. no?
In communism aren't the business risks just the same, but they are shared by more people? Businesses will go bust, regardless of the social framework, no? Also, under a communistic regime, doesn't the state take some role in technological advancement? Or wouldn't that work, because as you say, their role is food, clothing shelter, healthcare, education etc?
My main point, on the political type of regime, I think, is that it makes no sense to cut taxes, while education, healthcare, social housing, roads are not to a sufficient standard, just to pump money in to hands of those who own businesses because they invest inwardly in there own businesses and families and their local communities. As God said there will always be poor in the world, but our job is to make sure their basic needs are catered for. No?
is that what the conservatives stand for?
I'm impressed that you give 10% to church and 30% to taxes. I find that most people that want higher taxes usually don't pay much, so good for you.
I think most of my objection to socialism versus capitalism is that a socialist system (which is what we are sadly turning into) doesn't trust me to manage my money wisely and instead asks me to put my faith in the system to make this decision. I don't trust others, I trust myself. I try to live by example and give 10% to church, 33% in taxes (though I'd like to give much less) and an additional 20% to charities of our choosing.
Taxes are even higher when you factor in all the tax breaks the majority of Americans get that are excluded from the higher tax brackets. I hear all the time from friends saying its nice to have the $1K tax credit for each child (assuming I get it) which I'm excluded from. Additionally, I gave over 20K to charities beyond my church last year but its too much according to the tax laws so I can only write-off a small portion.
What am I to do - I can either continue to give to charities knowing I'll only get a credit for a portion thereby cutting my contribution, or I can decrease my giving to the maximum amount which I won't get taxed at. In essence, the system is practically forcing my hand to give less out of wise financial decision making because it doesn't trust me to do what is right. All because of the villanization (I think that is a word) of the rich by politicians and liberal preachers. I would give huge tax breaks for charitable giving in order to keep promote local and private organizations to do the charitable work. If they aren't doing a good job and don’t keep their books open to me, I choose to vote with my feet and move my money to someone who does (which is what I recently had to do).
Those of us giving far beyond the minimums set by the church and government are somehow still villains even though the vast majority of people only give the bare minimum required but are somehow viewed as the compassionate souls because they say we should care for the poor. I usually get worked up this time of year - we're doing our taxes. I cool off again around Memorial Day.
Well that was controversial, only a view.
Post a Comment