Was Christ a Republican or a Democrat?

[billvon]

Community, not "government" necessarily.

Agreed. But a community that exerts organized control over society as a whole is fairly indistinguishable from a government.

And ownership, not "control" (the US industrial economy did not become socialist during WWII).

There has never been a completely socialist economy, nor has there ever been a completely capitalist economy. But the US certainly did get a lot more socialist during WWII as large sectors of the economy came under government control. (Think rationing.)

 

[wegs]

My opinion from what I've read of Jesus' teachings, he didn't seem to be interested at all in politics. He taught his followers to seek God and his kingdom, first. From a purely economic view, it would seem that he'd prefer socialism over capitalism.

 

[Jeeves]

Are Americans really so locked into the mind-set of their dysfunctional political system that they can't imagine anyone in the world whose thinking doesn't fit into one of those two narrow slots?

 

[billvon]

Are Americans really so locked into the mind-set of their dysfunctional political system that they can't imagine anyone in the world whose thinking doesn't fit into one of those two narrow slots?

?? Most respondents have said he wouldn't be either one.

 

[Jeeves]

?? Most respondents have said he wouldn't be either one.

I don't see a majority.
About half comment on what Jesus might have thought; half argue about the meaning of political designations.
My idle question was aimed at the topic title.

 

[iceaura]

But the US certainly did get a lot more socialist during WWII as large sectors of the economy came under government control. (Think rationing.)

Rationing is not socialist. Egyptian pharoahs rationed to cover bad harvests via taxation of good harvests - that benefit, that relief of famine, was a basis of their power. Company towns in the US rationed via the company store and company scrip during WWII.

The US did not become one whit more socialist during WWII. It became if anything less socialist, or at least less amenable to further growth of the socialist enterprises then spreading over the American landscape - the movement toward larger scale agricultural and industrial cooperatives in the US was curbed, not abetted, by the combination of the Depression and the Federal government's needs in WWII and the Cold War that emerged from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amana_Colonies (Even the growth of electrical cooperatives took a hit, despite their irreplaceable role in bringing electricity to rural areas and clear advantages in managing what was obviously a utility - i.e. a "natural monopoly". )

It is very common for a central government to dominate and control a capitalist economy (and the wealthier capitalists involved to in turn corrupt and influence that government), for good or (more often?) for ill - one manifestation of that we name "banana republic", whether bananas are involved or not. That setup - a cornerstone of fascist government - is probably more common worldwide than laissez faire or "free market" capitalist organization (depending on how one counts examples).

Most of the Western governments in WWII did just that (and several - such as the Third Reich under Hitler - campaigned and marketed and sold their control and domination to the rubes as "socialism", since socialism was very popular in the miserable wake of the Great (Capitalist) Depression). In consequence, partly, the fascist propaganda meme that government regulation of industry is equivalent to socialism was inculcated in the vulnerable - to the ridiculous point that government itself and all its doings are often held to be "socialist" these days.

But nothing so silly would appear on a forum like this, surely?

 

[kx000]

Neither. His platform would be left-wing enough to get him crucified again.

Or saved at the last second as it is told in the Quran.

 

[spidergoat]

Are Americans really so locked into the mind-set of their dysfunctional political system that they can't imagine anyone in the world whose thinking doesn't fit into one of those two narrow slots?

When one party favors humanitarianism and the other is cruel as fuck, it's not a hard choice to make.

 

[Jeeves]

When one party favors humanitarianism and the other is cruel as fuck, it's not a hard choice to make.

Then how come.... ?

 

[spidergoat]

How come what?

 

[davewhite04]

How come what?

Who you talking about?

 

[Jeeves]

How come what?

If it's such an easy decision, How come it hasn't been made yet? How come Americans wrote down all their good ideas and enshrined the document, only to keep electing one cruel fuck after another, all the while claiming to revere this Jesus character?

 

[spidergoat]

The parties haven't always been differentiated so clearly.

We wanted to look good on paper... as long as it didn't effect the bottom line.

Levitical hate appeals to cruel people. The Bible is incoherent when considered as a whole. You can cherry pick the parts you want to follow.

 

[iceaura]

If it's such an easy decision, How come it hasn't been made yet?

It has been made.

It was made at the Presidential level in 1980, 1984, 2000, and most flagrantly in 2004 (some of the photos from the Republican setup of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were public, the nature of the Republican Iraq and Afghanistan Wars was common knowledge, the nature of the Republican War On Drugs was common knowledge, the nature of the US judicial and prison system was common knowledge, the behavior of the US and its allies in South and Central America was public information, etc).

One of my contentions is that it was made at the policy level in 1945, with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Just not the way decent people would prefer.

 

[exchemist]

My opinion from what I've read of Jesus' teachings, he didn't seem to be interested at all in politics. He taught his followers to seek God and his kingdom, first. From a purely economic view, it would seem that he'd prefer socialism over capitalism.

Indeed. According to the gospels he went out of his way to disabuse his followers that he was a political figure, when they were looking for a leader to free them from the Romans. "Render under Caesar the things that are Caesar's"; "My kingdom is not of this world", and so forth.

His concern for the poor and warnings about the evil moral effects of preoccupation with money are also abundantly clear.

However the problem is that socialism, being a political system, makes people reallocate their possessions involuntarily (in contrast to, say, a monastery, where the monks hold everything in common because that is a way of life they have personally signed up to). Also socialism in practice tends to become abused by those in power, as it depends on a powerful state machine to regulate so many aspects of life. So "public" ownership becomes state ownership, and the state then ceases to represent the interests of the public.

 

[iceaura]

However the problem is that socialism, being a political system, makes people reallocate their possessions involuntarily

All governments of industrial states tax, exert eminent domain, etc, regardless of economic system.
Many different political systems can incorporate socialist economies. The wise will choose wisely.

Also socialism in practice tends to become abused by those in power, as it depends on a powerful state machine to regulate so many aspects of life.

All governments lend themselves to abuse by those in power, regardless of economic system, unless curbed and restricted somehow.
Also: capitalism tends to become abused by those in power - to the point of slavery.
Avoiding overconcentration of State power in distant locations seems key. Community level socialist organization seems best, maybe.

 

[exchemist]

All governments of industrial states tax, exert eminent domain, etc, regardless of economic system.
Many different political systems can incorporate socialist economies. The wise will choose wisely.

All governments lend themselves to abuse by those in power, regardless of economic system, unless curbed and restricted somehow.
Also: capitalism tends to become abused by those in power - to the point of slavery.
Avoiding overconcentration of State power in distant locations seems key. Community level socialist organization seems best, maybe.

In principle I agree that would seem better, but then again it is local government that is usually the most riddled with corruption, due to the comparative lack of scrutiny.

 

[Jeeves]

One of my contentions is that it was made at the policy level in 1945, with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Not 1823, with the Munroe Doctrine? Not 1781, with the Mason-Dixon demarcation of legal slavery? Not 1663, when Charles II, on some whole other continent, granted the Cherokees' land to English settlers?
There have been lots of anti-christian policies that the people of the time did know about --
but, in fairness, they were consistently disinformed about the reason for those policies, and there was always a significant opposition to those policies. I don't think that makes it an easy decision and I'm not 100% sure it's irreversible... (well....only 99.4 % sure)

However the problem is that socialism, being a political system, makes people reallocate their possessions involuntarily

Weeeelll now, one might question, in light of the above observation, what is meant by "their property".

Also socialism in practice tends to become abused by those in power.....

In contrast to the purity of monarchy, oligarchy, republic, theocracy and capitalism?

So "public" ownership becomes state ownership, and the state then ceases to represent the interests of the public.

In name only. In fact, just as in all monetarist social organization, ownership (and therefore political power) becomes concentrated in an elite class - whether of landowners, traders, pirates, bankers, resource-brokers, transportation moguls, industrialists or investment consortia that own all of those assets. And football teams.

 

[iceaura]

Not 1823, with the Munroe Doctrine? Not 1781, with the Mason-Dixon demarcation of legal slavery? Not 1663, when Charles II, on some whole other continent, granted the Cherokees' land to English settlers?

New country after Civil War - as Shelby Foote noted, before the Civil War the US was referred to in the plural in standard media grammar, after that War it was referred to in the singular.
I picked that future policy key WWII event over anything in WWI because of the documented self-consciousness and awareness behind that decision. WWI surprised people, jumped them on a blind side - the Hiroshima/Nagasaki decision was made over months by people on the "good guy" (not aggressor) side, with relevant principles involved and advocated, and with near complete information.

In principle I agree that would seem better, but then again it is local government that is usually the most riddled with corruption, due to the comparative lack of scrutiny.

Also the governments least corrupt, the other extreme of the spectrum, when well informed local scrutiny (competent local newspaper, etc) is present - note the relative power of the corruptors and governments involved, when the corruption succeeds: DC caves to chicken feed, comparatively.

We even have some evidence to chew over, beyond common sense, these days - back a few months reputable research found and published a pattern of interest rate hikes on municipal bonds a few years after the demise of the last local newspaper, to the point that it in some common circumstances it might pay some towns to subsidize (even buy and run) a local independent paper as a utility and at a loss rather than get hit with the bond interest penalty (never mind the various and manifold costs of the corruption or impunity backed incompetence risk itself).

 

[spidergoat]

According to the gospels he went out of his way to disabuse his followers that he was a political figure

Everything is political. Throwing the money changers out of the temple was a move against the Roman occupation of Judea.