Socialism OTD

Socialism (even though I don’t like it) doesn’t cause people to go off the derech people use it as an excuse

the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of OTHER people’s money

We are also fooled by the spoken word. There are words that convey wonderful concepts that can be enticing. Wouldn’t you prefer negotiation to war? Anyone would. But when facing terror, or enemies that are sworn to your destruction who never keep a commitment and consider lying virtuous, I would frown on useless negotiation. Doesn’t equality sound nice? Guess what. Men and women are not the same. We each have our assets and liabilities. Doesn’t psychic reality make sense? Well, if that means that a he can identify as a she, and vice versa, we have a Pandora’s box of senselessness open wide. Can a teenager identify as 67 years old and collect social security? Can we here in the CR identify as President and Vice President, or as other races, etc.? It rapidly deteriorates into the ridiculous. That’s socialism. The initial sound is attractive, but it results in utter chaos.

Dear The Little,
Your point is valid. But all the ideas you mentioned have nothing to do with socialism.

Dear Edmark,
What does or does not work here? Which process we use to evaluate markets and production, is not indicative of inflation or failure.

Nomesoreh

The “problem” is that we do not live in Utopia.
We live in the real world with real issues.
The world is comprised of human beings who are complicated each with their own set of issues.
Communisim/Socialismrefuses to recognize that.

How did the OP come to the conclusion that Socialism causes people to go otd. One can argue that capitalism made people OTD in the United States.

Psychologically speaking there’s a basic reason why socialists giver less charity the capitalists.

the basic philosophy of socialism is ingraining in someone their “rights” and everyone else’s obligations towards them.

So it’s really hard for them to feel personally “obligated towards giving of themselves towards others.

While capitalism teaches you the obligations you have.

So when you see someone in need you cannot push your obligation on others.

Simple.

Socialism teach one that they the society i.e the government owes them certain tangible things i.e housing or healthcare.
These are not free they cost money and they require the services of others.

In other words if you are poor and I am wealthy you basic rights are that I am obligated to give you a portion of my work and you have the right to it.

( in other words your basic rights are the ability to steal from me)

As opposed to the founding philosophy which stated that my inherent rights are God given and the government cannot infringe upon them but the government is likewise not obligated to grant you them.

In actuality a central part of the philosophy of the founding of the United states was that basic rights were “inalienable”

The government could not infringe upon them because they were GOD given, and hence if they made rules against your inalienable rights they were inherently unjust.

Flowing from that is the concept of Capitalism, that it is not my skin color or creed that decides my success it is the “capitol” that I have and as long as I invest it the way I see fit the profits or losses belong to me.

You do not have a right to my work nor do I have a claim on yours.

Socialist women and socialist female adolescents have loose sexual morals. That will get lots of frum men and boys OTD.

Charliehall
I fail to see where I stated the Torah supports capitalism.

I did state that socialism is predicated on beliefs that anti fundamentals of Judaisim.

I fail to see how you disprove that.

Regarding Hilchos Aniyim.

First off the halochos of Hilchos Aniyim simply establish a obligation upon me to help out poor people it (probably) does not establish an ability for an individual poor person to demand from an individual support.

I do admit that this is subject to a dispute over whether it is mumon aniyim or not.

You are correct in respect that there is a moral obligation that derives from G-d but that does not ascribe itself to a a secular government,

Furthermore that obligation is predicated on my affording it.
Pray tell how does that translate into property taxes for school bills when I cannot afford tuition.

Secondly the Halochos of Charity establish many thing in direct contradiction to the secular ethics.

Again that is because the din of Hilchos Aniyim a requirement on me personally to help poor people no to give money to a third party which then does with it as they see fit.

If I have a job opening and a poor relative is capable of filling it I there is good Halachic grounds stating I am obligated to give to him.

And that obligation is for food and clothing how does that translate in Sesame Street on PBS?

Dear Ben,
You really have to get a fair handle on these academic disciplines. “You do not have a right to my work nor do I have a claim on yours.” That could be the mantra of Socialism! The worker is the only one who actually produces work. I still have no idea how it is educational. It is an understanding of our relationship with property.

voting to steal doesn’t make it morally correct!!
as is practically all americans give more then 10% to taxes

Many of the early jewish socialists regarded socialism with religious zeal. I looked for a quote online and found this attributed to Berl Katznelson, an early founder of labor zionism – “Everywhere the Jewish labourer goes, the divine presence goes with him.” I don’t know what language he said it in. It sounds like he’s quoting Rav Kook.

I would question the assumption in the original question that socialism caused them to go otd. It’s entirely possible that many were leaving anyway. Religion and socialism are not mutually exclusive. Many Eastern European Jews who immigrated to America left religion behind and never became socialists.

Socialists are somehow viewed as non-judgmental and inclusive, which appeals to people with self-esteem issues. Also, a socialist-style environment will coddle those who are depressed or fragile.

In my younger days, when I was insecure, I might have viewed the Antifa/BLM crowd as the “cool kids.” Today they just seem stupid and suicidal.

Dear Doing,
Working together is mere propaganda or advertising. It is used in all societies. It has nothing to do with economic doctrine. It is central to the anthropology of civilizations. Or in other words, social studies.

Dear Ben,
Socialism is founded on the idea that I can only gain from your labor, if you receive compensation equal to your efforts. (Such as being paid commensurately to what you worked.) Nothing, empowers the worker as much as Socialism. Your Critique should be on Communism and Capitalism.

But I still do net get your point. The common thief does not rationalize that property is unowned. He justifies it, based on that he has needs, and he wants it, and is able to steal. And, that money comes and goes, and repayment is possible.

To nomesorah: I do not understand your question.

n0m
You have a very unique view of Socialism.

Dear Huju,
In an academic sense, I have no idea what you are talking about with Socialists and morals. Many of the iconic workers in history [Of both genders.] never married. Because they worked nonstop. They remained celibate all their lives. This includes Jews who spent their lives on a given activity, such as Ben Asher.

As anthropology, I would like to know if there is any record of this idea. Or is it your opinion.

The socialist political movement includes a set of political philosophies that originated in the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 18th century and out of concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism.[12] By the late 19th century, after the work of Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, socialism had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production.[43][44] By the 1920s, communism and social democracy had become the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement,[45] with socialism itself becoming the most influential secular movement of the 20th century.[46] While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world’s first nominally socialist state led to socialism’s widespread association with the Soviet economic model, some economists and intellectuals argued that in practice the model functioned as a form of state capitalism[47][48][49] or a non-planned administrative or command economy.[50][51] Socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on all continents, heading national governments in many countries around the world. Today, many socialists have also adopted the causes of other social movements such as environmentalism, feminism and progressivism.[52]

Hi Ben, I missed you on this thread!

I am aware of all that you posted. And, could use it to source my previous posts. It seems like we have the same picture of Socialism, just we are stressing different parts. It would be two tedious to haggle over each line of the article above. So, let’s try something else. I see you ended with line about environmentalism etc. That gives me an idea.

Suppose an environmentalist comes to our town. He asks us to conserve and protect our natural resources. We are fine with that. But that would leave a lot of access to our natural resources at the mercy of the public. Naturally, the question arises as to who would supervise that the protected resources are maintained and not stolen for individual profit. He answers, “I am a socialist”. I take that to mean that, he believes that it is up to the people to defend what they have left unowned for the public, just like they protect their personal property. You take it as, he does not believe in the right of the individual to what has been put there by nature. Even at the expense of the resource itself. (It will be left unprotected.)

Thank you, Ben Levi, for those clear definitions. A lot of people call themselves socialists who don’t fit that definition. Bernie Sanders is the best example in the US. He is no Norman Thomas or Eugene Debs. (Thomas was a socialist but not a Marxist. There were many Christian socialists in the US and Thomas was one of them. Another was Francis Bellamy, author of the Pledge of Allegiance. Both were Christian ministers.)

And a lot of people are falsely slandered as socialists. Joe Biden is a great example.

Israel was a socialist country — by the accurate definitions Ben Levi gave — for the first three decades of its existence. Even today, most of the land is either owned or controlled by the government. David Ben-Gurion was a socialist, so was Moshe Sharett, so was Levi Eshkol, so was Golda Meir, so was Yitzhak Rabin.

And for the most part the dati and charedi parties had no objection. The dati parties were part of every single government under every Prime Minister I mentioned, and the founder of the main dati party, Rabbi Dr. Yosef Burg, was a huge talmid chacham. The charedi parties were part of the first three governments but stopped being a part of them for reasons other than socialism.

Had Israel been a free market economy in the 1950s it is unlikely that the then desperately poor country would have been able to support the huge number of huge immigrants it welcomed. Command economies work well in crises — the US had command economies for both World War I and World War II.

Furthermore of course the founding of the State was inextricably linked to Socialism.

The founding of the State was the main thrust of the Haskala movement which was inextricably linked to Socialism.

And of course the Gedolim did not object to Socialism per se.

They were busy fighting a war to rebuild Torah in the State that was being waged on virtually every front. The moral justice of the kibbutz was not exactly on the front burner.