Message from @ϟϟSiegϟFuckingϟBobϟϟ
Discord ID: 334522962722160640
nobody talking
is this a good talking
@BoleslawBierutLover
It's a reel beach, comrade
@BoleslawBierutLover
Are you calling out for some company?
@¡PeePee Silvia! Fuck u buddy.
Lol
What is the important differences, if any, between socialism and compulsory charity?
You asking me dude?
Specifically, as practised in history by religious institutions.
I am asking anyone who can answer.
Is there, for example, an tenable position for 'partial socialism'? Taxes and so on, upheld by a strong theoretical framework?
are you all commies and tankies in here?
@Deleted User Speaking out of my ass, but I would wager 'compulsory charity' in terms of religion is something that exists to admit to the needs created by a society that recognizes property ownership in the sense there's a ruling class that takes its wealth from the backs of others, and so trying to operate within that without rocking the boat the major religious institutions may advocate for a support of people within the community who otherwise may not be able to fend for themselves because the system puts them at a clear and devestating disadvantage.
That's my take on the issue at least.
well said
On a related note, I read Sebastian Junger's book "Tribe", which kind of goes over it. And from that it could be argued that charity as advocated by religion is an extension of the old tribal traditions and concepts of supporting one's own so the whole unit can survive to take care of you; of course adapted or largely abandoned to the point it's vestigal as soon as feudalism and shit happens.
@AaronMk And so you are saying that charity does not address the key issues of class and exploitation? But doesn't it? Like a safety net? If charity comes from a kind of primitive communism.
@Deleted User It is a safety net in the sense that it keeps individuals from going so far under that they die. But at the same time as it seems to be practiced doesn't actively seem to tackle the issues that put these individuals in that position. Some might re-train some people, but at the end of the day those chairites are moving the individual from one disaster to another on the horizon imo.
I see a lot of typing, and now I am [concerned]
@AaronMk You make it sound like slavery would be better than charity. It depends on how well the charity is used. A charitable program could result in measurable results and goals and not wholly be concerned with only meeting material existence. Speaking of slavery, one extreme would be to elevate the slave to such a focus that they are planned to surpass the master in knowledge and ability. For example in the Mameluke Empire in Egypt. It is not clear whether it is always bad for the slave or receiver of charity.
Or the Turkish Janissaries, who were also 'slaves'.
@Deleted User Some would say we're not much better off as slaves being paid an hourly wage for our work. But the full benefits of charity on the whole may not be fully realized so far as charity isn't interested in really changing the underlying problem and is only looked on as a temporary feature in someone's life until they can 'pick themselves up by the bootstraps'. But as it is, I'd argue too many people use it far too much while society as a whole likes to see charity as the temporary measure so people end up being indirect slaves in a way; it's why I'm worried about Universal Basic Income too, sure it looks good on paper but then what are we really doing when we all get a free 20,000 a year just to live? Is our existence then just to prop up the current system without having to actually change it in anyway?
There was also a TED talk I watched where the speaker talked about charities and how we need to change the way we think about them, as in we need to do away with the notion everything they bring in needs to go out to people in need and charities need to operate with a higher over-head and in general behave more like companies. So now the dependents are commodities of their own in this sense.
@AaronMk I think I agree with you on the point that charity just entrenches bad power structures, unless it is something like healthcare, housing etc. But like you say, the notion is a slippery slope that people take for granted. Charity without tough love is celebrating sloth.
umm WTF?! LOVE COMMUNISM but HATE RUSSIA?!
@Deleted User Certainly, and people need to hold themselves up. Society as a whole can make it easier, but without any contributions into it then what are they but consumers paid to consume? This becomes stickier though if we let the trend towards something like automation continue, where now the question is do we destroy the machines taking our jobs just so people can work and contribute into society with produce that they own, or do we render the machines the common property of all individuals and they can take freely from them whatever they want or need as it's produced?
@AaronMk This is, I think, a role of religion. It posits goals and ambitions that are not, on the face of it, purely materialistic. Not in the sense of profit motivation, and not in the sense of economic freedom. The material is a means to an ends, to the religious institution. This would also be a way to short-circuit the economic fatalism of consumerism, and motivate people to seek alternate goals.
@Deleted User Depends on how you want to interprete it. On one hand you do have individuals within faith or entire sects that advocate some kind of material modesty so that everyone can have equal access to what they need in life, but on the other hand you have people who legit preach being wealthy and having more property is a sign of God's blessing so if you're not wealthy or not trying to get excess wealth you are not in God's good grace or working to be in his good grace. I suppose it could be compared to any sort of ideology where people with a mission in mind can and will cherry pick elements to build a case for their own personal ambitions.
Personally I prefer Buddhism if because it emphasizes working on yourself by surmounting problems posed by excess materialism, where as Christianity tends to externalize issues (if life's rough; pray to Jesus, he'll fix you right up) or out-right say man-kind is irredeemably terrible and rendering the entire human race as being monks and nuns is the only way for global salvation.
On that subject, I do like Arianism as a concept and I wish it was still a thing.
I specifically had Islam in mind and its treating of slaves. I am now just realising that when their slaves were trained to be professionals in the army (Mamluks, Janissaries) they soon realised their self importance and took over the political conditions. This has some parallels with social revolution.
It does. On a related note: I've read points and speculation that Islam was to be a step to abolishing slavery by granting leniancy to slaves, which'd be a spring-board to total abolition of the practice at some future date. Sort of an early-US approach to it to draw parallels there (paraphrased: "We can't do this thing now, it'll totally destroy the Union in its infancy. We need to ween the country off slavery at a slow and consistent pace!"). So instead of screwing over everyone who might matter early on it was put into limbo that got forgotten about and even as jurors across the Muslim world cried foul the political establishment kept onto the practice because it was too advantagous to their economy or their politics.
And abolishing slaves was only in name only. The emergence of capitalism soon transferred the slave role to a new class of people. Let me say something radical here. Being pro-slavery, in the same sense as being pro-working class, and increasing the self-awareness of their importances, is a positive direction. An institution which focuses on making slaves better, even better than their owners, directly leads to an overthrow of the ruling class.
I might cautionarily point out that you have to be a little careful lest the class roles reverse themselves. The then-slave, now-ruling class could just become another slave-owning class repeating the some practices as before. Though thinking about it too, that's looking at the issue through only the lens of a specefic short period of history (Mameluke Egypt, for instance). In the grand scheme of things that role reversal where the ex-slaves are the slave holders today are where we are today.
>tfw this is real, despite being comedy. https://youtu.be/A4-3TKy2A28
Haha, I know this guy. He is Australian and plays in the band Nazxul.
I used to go through his stuff a lot when I was on a George Carlin binge a long time ago. I actually forgot about him until recently until someone posted this in a thread about supporting a four-hour work day.