AHC: Christian Socialism popular in the USA

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
This is sort of a strange thing to say. Traditionally, the most popular forms of anarchism were incompatible with libertarianism because they were labor movements in support of the working class.


That's something to consider, however, as Anarchism - like Libertarianism - disavows most traditional forms of organization and coercion (social or otherwise) and especially those associated with the modern world, it still seems incompatible with the goal providing anything more than the basic caveman level constraints against the most immediate, violent, and spectacular forms of anti-social behavior. Human Evil 1.0. Human Evil 2.0 - This Time We're Wearing Clothes - seems beyond the grasp of both these philosophies, at least to me.
 

E.Ransom

Banned
Depending on the definition of socialism you use, Jesus was almost definitely a socialist. But then again, so are many Prime Ministers of Britain and other people that aren't radical soviet spies.

If you change definitions, anyone can be anything. We can then make Jesus a liberalist, a conservative, etc.

I'm assuming that you live in America.

You assume incorrectly. I live in Denmark.

This is the case in Europe, the birthplace of socialism.

However, there isn't a single socialist/communist state left in Europe. The last one collapsed in December 1991.
For sure, Europe's systems can better be described as "socialist" than America's can. But that's the same as saying that normal flu can better be called a global life-extinguishing pandemic, than the common cold can. Theoretically correct, but there's still a LONG way from the flu to the goal.
My own Denmark's system was build by social democrats, who loathed communists and socialists with a passion. There is a reason that it was the liberals and social-liberals with whom the social democrats made the Kanslergade_Agreement instead of simply firing up the rhetoric and getting a more malleable left-wing parliament, or a revolution altogether.

Also, not all Marxists are Soviets who set up gulags just because. Many figures who sympathized with or advocated Marxism did a lot of good, though clearly Stalin didn't number among them.

The GULAGs weren't set up just because, just as North Korea's "re-education camps" aren't. They served a, albeit immoral, purpose.
Evil always finds a way to legitimize its actions as good.
However, I'm hard-pressed to think of any marxist regime that hasn't degenerated from the aspirations of its founders, to totalitarianism. The entire East Bloc, along with the USSR, China (China was maoist, but IIRC, Mao's inspiration was marxism), North Korea, Cuba, etc.

However, I fear that we may be on the verge of derailing the thread. If you want to continue this over PM, please feel free to do so :)
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
That's actually something important for Americans to understand. We take wealth away from certain groups for the welfare of the whole all the time, and so do the other countries. That disparate left and right groups all do this is lost on people. There are those here fond of calling a politician or policy socialist as an insult and opposing them on those grounds. This means that, selectively and when they feel like it, these groups will oppose something solely on the basis that it's a redistribution of wealth rather than on the effect it'll have. The discussion needs to be not "Is it redistribution" but "Is it beneficial redistribution".

In the United States, unfortunately, redistribution of wealth towards anyone except those in abject poverty goes largely ignored, or if it is noticed, is either argued as a positive good or sworn up and down not be be a re-distribution of wealth at all. Hence, the increasing use of Eminent Domain to transfer property used for residential or commercial property from middle class and poor people (private citizens) to be used as residential or commercial property for rich people. An outrage to be sure, which outrages Americans very little...since...well, their betters are getting it. Frankly, I sometimes suspect the whole country has Stockholm Syndrome.
 
If you change definitions, anyone can be anything. We can then make Jesus a liberalist, a conservative, etc.

Precisely. For me, this is why I prefer to keep politics out of my religion, and religion out of my politics. Whether for Conservatives, liberals, socialists, Christians, atheists, etc., whenever you mix the two, the results typically aren't pretty to see.

However, there isn't a single socialist/communist state left in Europe. The last one collapsed in December 1991.
For sure, Europe's systems can better be described as "socialist" than America's can. But that's the same as saying that normal flu can better be called a global life-extinguishing pandemic, than the common cold can. Theoretically correct, but there's still a LONG way from the flu to the goal.
My own Denmark's system was build by social democrats, who loathed communists and socialists with a passion. There is a reason that it was the liberals and social-liberals with whom the social democrats made the Kanslergade_Agreement instead of simply firing up the rhetoric and getting a more malleable left-wing parliament, or a revolution altogether.

Do not the Social Democrats of Denmark, however, sit in the Party of European Socialists:p? It seems to me, that this supports the thesis that socialism has too wide a definition.

The GULAGs weren't set up just because, just as North Korea's "re-education camps" aren't. They served a, albeit immoral, purpose.
Evil always finds a way to legitimize its actions as good.
However, I'm hard-pressed to think of any marxist regime that hasn't degenerated from the aspirations of its founders, to totalitarianism. The entire East Bloc, along with the USSR, China (China was maoist, but IIRC, Mao's inspiration was marxism), North Korea, Cuba, etc.

While I am certainly no socialist, and no communist, to be completely fair, much of the hard-left (including AH.com's hard left) has largely disavowed totalitarian communist countries, and emphasize the primacy of democracy in socialism. There is, however, disagreement over whether to call the historical communist countries socialist or communist or not. The argument of the hard-left is generally that due to the lack of democratic decision-making within historical communist countries, they are not real communists or socialists, and thus, not communist or socialist. Obviously, many disagree.
 
While I am certainly no socialist, and no communist, to be completely fair, much of the hard-left (including AH.com's hard left) has largely disavowed totalitarian communist countries, and emphasize the primacy of democracy in socialism. There is, however, disagreement over whether to call the historical communist countries socialist or communist or not. The argument of the hard-left is generally that due to the lack of democratic decision-making within historical communist countries, they are not real communists or socialists, and thus, not communist or socialist. Obviously, many disagree.

Definitely. It is either calling these countries as "degenerated workers' states", "deformed workers' states" or even as a form of "state capitalist states", meaning that the Soviet state acted not as a workers' state within its classical and orthodox definition in particular but as a single large capitalist corporation in a territorial bourgeois nation-state form. Wage labor after all was not abolished within these countries, amongst other degenerate elements taken from feudalism and capitalism.

I remember one quote from Leon Trotsky (even though i am not a Trotskyite), "A planned economy needs democracy as much as a human body needs oxygen", meaning that society as an organic entity can only function well through a democratic process covering not only political but economic spheres of life. Industrial democracy, basically.

Even if Trotsky did better than Stalin, It is still a big question if he can stop the growth of Nazism in Germany by having the KAPD, KPD and the social democrats form a possible electoral alliance which I don't think Stalin wanted to happen if I remember correctly. Nevertheless, I can say that it's too late already in the context of spreading international communism. Even if the Chinese Revolution of 1925 become successful. It's too late. But it would end better than OTL from a capitalistic perspective. There would be a softer landing and smoother capitalistic restoration in practice. But this is for another thread.
 
So here's another thought
Puritans famously settled in America. What if Levellers and Diggers went?
 
Could Mike Huckabee be credibly described as a Christian Socialist? He's not in favor of gov't ownership of the means of production, but he's certainly more lefty economically than most of the rest. Plus he's a Baptist preacher.

Perhaps Christian Social Democrat instead?

Heavens no hes a republican for gods sake !

Besides that Socialism does not have to be government control of means of production, in fact most advocate cooperative or community ownerships.
 
Heavens no hes a republican for gods sake !

Besides that Socialism does not have to be government control of means of production, in fact most advocate cooperative or community ownerships.

If he's more communitarian he might fit.... but he's not.
 

katchen

Banned
Christian socialism is a non-starter in itself.
I'm not talking about the "Christian Democratic" parties of Europe, but of the full-blown socialist parties calling themselves "Christians". Socialism has an in-build contempt for Christianity, and all other religion, as the famed "opiate of the masses", and "Christian socialism" is so obviously nothing more than socialism trying to pull off using Christianity as a means, in much the same way that other totalitarian ideologies have tried to do ("deutsche Christen", anyone?).

Also, from what I know of the history of how America came to be, we would need a very early POD that I do not know what is, in order to make the "mindset" of Americans more susceptible to this strange mix of religion and politics.
For one, America was build upon "every man is his own fortune". For most of its history, there was very, very little, if any, help available for the millions of immigrants who build the US. You either stood or fell on your own merit. No one held you back, and no one helped you. That tends to make a people that thinks very little about "big government" and "handouts".
For this reason alone (though I could name others), I believe that especially in America (and elsewhere too - the movement isn't very popular at all outside of Latin America in the 70s) "Christian socialism" is a non-starter.

If you want socialism in America, you'll need to do a Bolshevik-style revolution: A few demagogues at the head of an organized movement, with some support from the Army. The Depression is probably the best time to try and pull that one off, though I honestly don't know anything about socialist sympathies in the armed forces at the time.
You've obviously never heard of the Social Gospel Movement in the United States, Ransom. Which is not surprising, since Social Gospel is rarely taught about anymore outside of some VERY liberal denomination's seminaries, such as Presbyterians or Methodists or Episcopalians. Check out www.pbs/now/socialgospel/htm or google social gospel.
Fusion of socialism and Christianity was very popular during the late 19th and early 20th Century. The only reason we don't know much about it is that Southern based fundamentalists have managed to totally outshout socialist Christians. Perhaps the last socialist Christian of national stature was Dr. Martin Luther King, who was assassinated for preaching social democracy and attempting to unify white and African-American working classes. And yes, the King Assassination WAS a conspiracy involving government complicity.
 
You've obviously never heard of the Social Gospel Movement in the United States, Ransom. Which is not surprising, since Social Gospel is rarely taught about anymore outside of some VERY liberal denomination's seminaries, such as Presbyterians or Methodists or Episcopalians. Check out www.pbs/now/socialgospel/htm or google social gospel.
Fusion of socialism and Christianity was very popular during the late 19th and early 20th Century. The only reason we don't know much about it is that Southern based fundamentalists have managed to totally outshout socialist Christians. Perhaps the last socialist Christian of national stature was Dr. Martin Luther King, who was assassinated for preaching social democracy and attempting to unify white and African-American working classes. And yes, the King Assassination WAS a conspiracy involving government complicity.

Socialism is quite more popular in a peculiar note in the international socialist movement in rural America than in rural Europe, basically for the reasons liberal intellectuals like to insist as the reason why America NEVER have a popular socialist movement (new nation on pure bourgeois foundations, lack of feudal and aristocratic past, etc.). Those factors should have helped the growth of American socialism. But why it didn't? The westwards movement to the frontier, especially by immigrants, is a very proletarian event. But when the frontier finally closed down in 1890, that's when America started to catch up with Europe in a chance of establishing a popular socialist movement of its own peculiar kind, out of its peculiar conditions. There are the Workingmen's parties before. New York City as one of the most radical cities on the planet since the Jacksonian era. The Farmers' Alliance. But the entire thing never got a chance... because of one guy. Theodore Roosevelt. His arrival is totally by historical accident due to the assassination of his predecessor, William McKinley. I am not saying that the Progressive Era will never arrive. It will look different. But Roosevelt made a difference in the time of the almost unstoppable growth of monopoly capitalism (thanks to Roosevelt's two Supreme Court appointees in time for a different 5-4 decision in the Northern Securities case) and also at the height of very heated industrial conflict in the United States (more than what Europe has, the myth and realities of the American Dream started to no longer match in pursuit of post-materialistic goals) where he took a conciliatory approach. This, with his popularity, made a big difference. Factionalism within the American labor movement did not help either. But I consider it less of a factor especially when the empowered trusts start to violently break down unions. So when World War I happened and those on the Left made a stand on fighting against participating in it, their still low numbers despite their gains in 1912-1918 period by the start of the First Red Scare made them victims of federal suppression and the radical Left never recovered from it. A native oriented American radical left movement is finished. Also, much of the primary aims of the progressives are already been met by Roosevelt and Wilson, even though other more radical aims were never reached. So it allowed populism to die down slowly but surely. Thanks also to the distraction of the war. Eventually, with the radical Left gone, it's time to fill the void. That's where the KKK rose up in the 1920s, the worship of the constitution stuff. Lovestone and Stalin talking of American exceptionalism the way we knew it. It all came mostly from the Roaring Twenties. That's how we slowly got these Bible thumping conservatives from the heartland. The height of the Cold War, McCarthyism, the creation of the Interstate Highway System and continued alienation of rural America from the regulations and culture of urban, industrial, liberal New Deal America sealed the entire deal. When the South joined the Midwest from the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Immigration Act of 1965, the rise of the New Left in urban America and the Republican Southern strategy of 1968, we got what we're dealing right now.

The entire thing would start to be different the moment the Supreme Court decided that trust busting is an unconstitutional act. We no longer have America. It just became close to Germany/Japan. It's that a good thing? I don't know. Depends on what you believe politically and economically. Since the 1980s, all of the competition law regulations just softened to the point that we now have quasi-monopolies/oligopolies/monopolistic competitions. If there's really such a thing where capitalism can be beneficial... this is not the right way.

Ok rant over. :D

EDIT: Katchen! Be careful of saying that it's a conspiracy! You might be kicked!
 
This is sort of a strange thing to say. Traditionally, the most popular forms of anarchism were incompatible with libertarianism because they were labor movements in support of the working class.

And libertarianism can't have labor movements in support of the working class? For I what I know, the first person in written literature that coined the term "libertarian" is an anarcho-communist. I've been caught by this right-wing American libertarianism before that just began to rise up in the 1950s thanks to a lot of direct and indirect corporate funding and the whole Cold War atmosphere. But I realize it's all a farce. The American economic tyrants did very well over the course of the 20th century. Let's see now here in the 21st. If we can even survive this one.
 
If you want socialism in America, you'll need to do a Bolshevik-style revolution: A few demagogues at the head of an organized movement, with some support from the Army. The Depression is probably the best time to try and pull that one off, though I honestly don't know anything about socialist sympathies in the armed forces at the time.

Someone already made a popular, award winning timeline out of that. And it's a full blown communist one. There are other timelines I've seen too. But this one's not a Blanquist kind of a take over. Blanquism will never work in my opinion. Not even something like the October Revolution in the case of the United States.

And it doesn't necessarily have to be a revolution with the United States falling down the picture. A moderate revolution is enough. Though it's not going to be a revolutionary socialist one but reformist. A lot can be done in the 1890-1920 period that could change the fate of the United States if in case it created a popular radical labor movement.
 

Beer

Banned
The entire thing would start to be different the moment the Supreme Court decided that trust busting is an unconstitutional act. We no longer have America. It just became close to Germany/Japan. It's that a good thing? I don't know. Depends on what you believe politically and economically.
Ok rant over. :D
Hi!

Libertad, I resent that comparison! The US is way different from Germany and Japan. The social legislation of both is lightyears ahead of the United States! And among the top 4 economies of the world, Germany and Japan have both the least territory and populations. So for all problems these two nations have, they do something right, since both are able to punch far above their weight on the economic stage.
 
Hi!

Libertad, I resent that comparison! The US is way different from Germany and Japan. The social legislation of both is lightyears ahead of the United States! And among the top 4 economies of the world, Germany and Japan have both the least territory and populations. So for all problems these two nations have, they do something right, since both are able to punch far above their weight on the economic stage.

I guess you misunderstood me. United States competition law is strong during this time of the late 19th and early 20th century. It's responsible how these monopoly trusts were managed to be broken down and vertical integration prevented. I am not talking of social legislation. Especially the contemporary ones. I am talking of economic legislation like competition law. Now compare that to Germany and Japan during that time. It's more monopolistic in these two countries. Now take away the Sherman Act and progressive regulatory measures done because of a Supreme Court ruling. The only way you can counteract that to stop some radicalization because of this ruling is to start progressive measures including some of those social legislation done by Bismarck in Germany. Not so much of Japan during that time until the postwar era though.

Again, just like I said, the Progressive Era will take a different turn. Is it a good thing? Or a bad thing? I didn't say anything about that. It depends on our political and economic beliefs.

Am I understood now?
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
If you change definitions, anyone can be anything. We can then make Jesus a liberalist, a conservative, etc.



You assume incorrectly. I live in Denmark.

Sorry, I assumed incorrectly. Since there are several major socialist parties in Denmark, your ignorance of the definitions is simply unwarranted, then.
 
Top