/lit/ - Literature

[Thomas No.7206877]

The difficulty with secular socialism, at least conventionally with central planning and so on, is that it puts the entirety of economics into secular control which would totally exclude religious considerations. Therefore Christian socialism is entirely as realizable as secular socialism, yet totally incompatible with it.

[Anonymous No.7206897]

>>7206877
>Memedank
whoa Thomas, didnt see you there...

[Thomas No.7208914]

>>7206897
Thrust your hand in my side yourself

[No True Scottist No.7209236]

>>7206877

Socialism is usually some form of inverted Christian Theology anyways, as far as ideology goes, so the re-inversion of the Political Theology is easy enough. Still, I wonder if Christian Socialism can co exist with a familial patriarchal society that is based on genuine hierarchical human bonds, as opposed to social collectivism that drowns out individual bloodlines into a promiscuous mass for the sake of "society". Millbank has mentioned that he wants to see aristocracy and democracy conserved in a union of sorts, but like always, his exact position on the matter is elusive to me.

I agree that economics has to be a subordinate sphere to the sacred, but I'm not sure if just that is enough .

[Anonymous No.7209241]

>Therefore Christian socialism is entirely as realizable as secular socialism

You're right, in that it's not realizable at all

[Anonymous No.7209255]

>thinkin socialism aint a religion

nigga u lame

[Anonymous No.7209276]

>>7206877

[Thomas No.7209308]

>>7209236
Milbank is more interested in a restoration of aristocratic values, that is, virtue ethics combined with distributist elements that are compatible with a post industrial society, rather than aristocracy as an economic system. In other words, he wants to salvage the good things about aristocracy, while discarding all the rubbish (such as obsession with blood as the determiner of all worth). And by aristocracy, he means before what he refers to as the speculative aristocracy that came with intense centralization and the divine right of kings, which he thinks presaged bourgeois speculative values. He's also not interested entirely in the reality of older aristocratic values, but rather their ideal, since he sees pragmatist values as very modern and cynical, and necessarily secular. The idea being that people can't really live up to expectations, but that doesn't mean expectations should be lowered, because Christianity is all about needing help from God do to one's failings. He wants values based on forgiveness for failure to meet ideals, rather than the secular tendency for excuses for failure to live up to ideals.

[Anonymous No.7209347]

>>7209308
>(such as obsession with blood as the determiner of all worth).
lel, and then how do you rate the people in order to know who is aristocrat or not ?

war is the sole purifier of humanity, since nay other method will be man-made, contested by the weak.

[Thomas No.7209393]

>>7209347
>lel, and then how do you rate the people in order to know who is aristocrat or not ?
I don't think he's interested in that.

>war is the sole purifier of humanity, since nay other method will be man-made, contested by the weak.
Edgy nonsense derived from a secular perspective that understands no language other than violence, money and sex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCOTa6rnlI

[Anonymous No.7210195]

>>7209393
Youre the one that's edgy claiming that a secular perspective is bad. And judeo-christendom is to blame for fucking with the term "love" and including some "God" into the picture that "one can love" thus belittling true love between partners. And i didn't watch your video, because i can't hear shit in this environment, but it looked like some pop-pulp.

[Anonymous No.7210203]

What religious considerations would need to be taken in the distribution of resources?

[Thomas No.7210210]

>>7210195
Pretty sure the idea of true love didn't commonly exist as a concept in the ancient world, except with sixty-year-old men hitting on 13 y/o boys. "Love" was used as a term in myths where gods rape women.

[Thomas No.7210211]

>>7210203
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_destination_of_goods

[Anonymous No.7210214]

I thought all the millibank threads were over. Wasn't it just one or two spergs making all those gay threads?

[Anonymous No.7210220]

>>7210195
Not to mention how Christianity destroyed all kinds of sensible valuesystems before it in order to lift weakness up into the world and make it a virtue. It's basically what made us good little goys to begin with.

[Anonymous No.7210252]

>>7210210
I'm "pretty sure" that love have existed for the time that humans have existed on this planet. Perhaps before the evolvement of homo sapiens aswell.

No matter. The idea of a god you can "love" is a bastardization of Christianity regardless of how certain cultures have viewed love.

[Thomas No.7210255]

>>7210220
Yeah, as opposed to having orgies and forcing slaves to kill each other for entertainment.

>>7210252
I think that is what makes Christianity so distinct. God sacrifices to us, rather than the other way around. God loves us. And that is beautiful. Any love we can muster for God, is a gift from him.

[No True Scottist No.7210309]

>>7209308

I don't think that "blood purity" or anything of the like is necessary. Though it worked fine in the past because it maintained stability and kept monarchs running their kingdoms properly, since they knew that the kingdom would be passed down to their blood relatives, and this kept them motivated to pass down something good. I simply want massive decentralization and the destruction of all nation states, with individual patriarchs and their people living primarily by their own political laws tempered by obedience to the laws of God.

Understanding that values are always to be based on the ideal due to the reality of original sin ( with the possibilities of redemption always in mind) is integral as well, so I can agree with Millbank on that part. It all seems like it constitutes a decent enough proposal. I just think that the the homogenization of peoples into "citizens", egalitarian idealism, and the animalistic democratic impulses that comes with that must go, and "socialism" tends to imply just those things.

>>7210195

> And judeo-christendom is to blame for fucking with the term "love" and including some "God" into the picture that "one can love" thus belittling true love between partners.

Non-theological love is just romanticist drivel that evolved out of post-christian secular bourgois society. There is no "true love", there are multiple different kinds of emotions that arise in erotic contexts that are irreducible to some genus. Marriages were arranged for just this reason and still often are today, the romanticist concept is meaningless, marrying for "true love" alone is marrying for a fantasy. Marriage and the union of a man and woman have many positive aspects to it, trust, companionship, eroticism, economic benefit, the union of families, completing teleological ends in reproduction, loving God in one another, etc, but "true love" as an isolated concept is just a bad abstraction. One that we can hardly find in traces of ancient civilizations as well.

[Anonymous No.7210313]

>>7206877
This reminds me, Milbank was an outspoken opposer of gay marriage, wasn't he? His reasoning was something related to children no longer belonging to the parents, but being considered adopted or something. Could anyone explain this? I'm not familiar with the gay rights debate, but that part seems particularly weird. I know this isn't socialism related, but since most of the left is "SJW" I figured it's relevant.

[Anonymous No.7210315]

>>7210309
>if it doesn't come from my interpretation of God, it is, ipso facto, "romanticist drivel."
Christian philosophy, everyone.

[No True Scottist No.7210324]

>>7210220
>Not to mention how Christianity destroyed all kinds of sensible valuesystems before it in order to lift weakness up into the world and make it a virtue

Tell that to Charlemagne and the Crusaders.
Christ told us to give onto Caesar what was Caesar's, Catholicism can abide militarism so as long as God is not displaced by the secular from it. Catholicism is a universal and non-dualistic religion, it can always resolve the tension between opposites. Both the meek and the powerful can have their own virtues.

[Anonymous No.7210325]

>>7210211

Explain your meaning, don't just defer to Wikipedia. The Catholic Church recognizes private property and the juridical right of the state or its equivalent to enforce those rights. So what? What does this have to do with 'Christian socialism'? What do you even mean by 'Christian socialism'?

[Anonymous No.7210328]

>>7210315

Not what he was arguing. He's saying it's a meaningless abstraction because there's no particular thing it designates- companionship, eroticism, etc. are all fundamentally different things, to be structured by love of the good, which, when properly worked out, is theological. Learn to read.

[Thomas No.7210341]

>>7210313
Milbank opposes gay marriage because he sees marriage as the fundamental symbol that connects sex with reproduction in social consciousness. He has said that he doesn't oppose gay adoption, saying that it is far preferable to the alternative. But marriage for Milbank is an important symbol.

He also opposes abortion and is critical of the sexual liberation aspects of feminism.

>>7210325
The Catholic recognition of the right of private property is very different from the liberal one. The Catholic idea is that everyone has a right (is entitled to own) to certain private property (namely a house and land), not that all private property is sacred.

Christian socialism is simply the socialization of the means of production, and the distribution of other property.

[Anonymous No.7210344]

>>7206877
What's your point

[Anonymous No.7210355]

>>7210344
To get a religious discussion going.

[Thomas No.7210381]

>>7210309
>I just think that the the homogenization of peoples into "citizens", egalitarian idealism, and the animalistic democratic impulses that comes with that must go, and "socialism" tends to imply just those things.
Classical socialism, like Rousseau's and Charles Fourier, makes a strong distinction between social and natural inequality. You're thinking in terms of anarcho-communism.

[Anonymous No.7210389]

>>7206877
>capitalism
Economy is run by a large pool of competing elites
>central planning
Economy elitesis controlled by a small group of colluding elites

Enjoy your gulags faggots

[Thomas No.7210404]

>>7210389
>Milbank
>central planning
Nah. Milbank is about family, guild, community and church planning, and expressly opposes the state-market dichotomy for solutions as a symptom of Protestantism.

[Anonymous No.7211656]

ok

[Anonymous No.7211668]

>>7206877

There's evidence that communes which have a strong religious focus are much more effective than secular ones, and are much less likely to collapse.


>http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.500.5715&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[Anonymous No.7211678]

>>7209347
this. Napoleon tried to restore aristocracy through the legion of honor in 1805 or so. But the protest was so strong that it ended up resembling Milbank's idea of aristocracy in that it became a sign of your virtue or achievement. It was awarded on a political basis though and it never really got off the ground

[Anonymous No.7211699]

>>7210341
>He also opposes abortion and is critical of the sexual liberation aspects of feminism.
what's his argument against these?

[Anonymous No.7211722]

>>7211668

That would be presumably because of group identification. It's not hard to imagine that a group that has a unique unified stance towards reality is gonna have stronger in-group cohesion. However, secularism usually leads towards a greater plurality of ideas, especially if the religion we compare it to is a western one (i.e. has an authoritative metaphysical and ethical orthodox dogma, as opposed to the secular ideologies).

Also why you baiting me with Blake, bro?

[Anonymous No.7211725]

>>7211722
>However, secularism usually leads towards a greater plurality of ideas, especially if the religion we compare it to is a western one (i.e. has an authoritative metaphysical and ethical orthodox dogma, as opposed to the secular ideologies).
this is the case of every liberal country

liberalism only works when there is an explicit enemy unifying the people; whereas when no enemy is around, the liberals do not acknowledge their authority.

after centuries of liberalist humanism, the guy in power will be the one assuming the liberal authority without too much violating the human rights

[Anonymous No.7211827]

>>7211722

Quite, religion is a highly effective facilitator of conformity. Secularism and socialism, in theory at least, produce pesky free-thinkers.

What's wrong with Blake, comrade?

[Anonymous No.7211844]

>>7211827
>free-thinkers.
lel, free from what ?

[Anonymous No.7211858]

>>7211844

Jebus or somefing.

[Anonymous No.7211864]

Basically every Christian State has been successful; I've yet to see a single secular state that isn't a complete failure.

[Anonymous No.7211874]

>>7211722
>However, secularism usually leads towards a greater plurality of ideas, especially if the religion we compare it to is a western one (i.e. has an authoritative metaphysical and ethical orthodox dogma, as opposed to the secular ideologies).
toplel

what you call secularism remains a pure idea, and since you are a rationalist, you believe that your idea connects to the reality.

[Anonymous No.7211941]

>>7211874
this is the war against intolerance that the free-thinkers have been setting up

[Anonymous No.7211965]

>>7206877
Socialism is inherently materialistic and the point of Christianity is not giving everyone food and water and social security.
Also nice to have you back Thomas. When are you converting to Catholicism?

[Anonymous No.7211969]

>>7211864
Singapore.

[Anonymous No.7212098]

What does Milbank mean when he says he wants theology reinstated as 'queen of the sciences'? Does he expect the global scientific community to convert to Christianity or something? Top fucking kek

[Anonymous No.7212135]

>>7212098
I think he means it in the sense of drag queen.

A rather gaudily, deliberately over the top queen to service actual scientists with a little light relief.

[Anonymous No.7212729]

>>7212135
Kek

[Anonymous No.7212902]

>>7212098
>>7212135
Fuck off idiot

[Thomas No.7212999]

>>7211699
Well, for one thing, he says it's leading to an increasing sexualization of children in clothing, and actually separating the roles of the sexes more and more rather than providing equality to them. He also thinks that it is leading the separation of sex and reproduction in social consciousness, which will to the idea of birth being separated from sex in fact (such as in the Dialectic of Sex), which can eventually lead to things like eugenics and natural births being not seen as beautiful--essentially he's concerned that it will make human life stop seeming precious for its own sake, and be regarded as worthless when not desired, all in the name of liberating women.

He's also opposed to the push that men and women think in exactly the same way, and thinks rather than trying to mold women to men, it would be better to see alternative psychologies as an advantage in every field, since women could solve problems in ways men don't, and vice versa. But instead it's seen as jeopardizing women's possibilities if they don't think just like men.

[Thomas No.7213003]

>>7211965
You're a Catholic, but you don't think the universal destination of goods is part of Christianity?

[Anonymous No.7213222]

>>7213003
No. There will always be poor people. The goal is the salvation of souls, not feeding all hungry. Universal destination of goods never was a part of Christianity. Especially not forced and especially not to give to those who don't work, the those who don't work don't eat part.

[Anonymous No.7213470]

>>7211969
>asians are atheists

Nice one white boy.

[No True Scotus No.7213488]

>>7212098

In Aristotelian terms, a Science is about deducing from necessary first principles to necessary conclusions, through deductions that take us from what is known better by us to what is known better by nature ( there is allot of contention over how this actually cashes out in reality- imo the closest we have to a true Aristotelean Science is Formal Logic and Mathematics. It is more of an ideal than a strict method.) So any body of deductively produced knowledge from first principles ( Geometry, Metaphysics, Theology, etc) is a "science" in this sense. Revealed Theology is "scientific" as it has articles of faith which are absolute first principles that deductions are made from. Natural Theology uses the same first principles as metaphysics and comes to Theological truths through deducing from metaphysical first principles. Aristotelean science is a forerunner to, but not identical with, the experimental natural Philosophy we can start to find traces of in Albert of Saxonny, Roger Bacon, or Robert Grossestete in the late Medieval Period, and starts to really come together in the early modern period.

>>7212999
I have to run, but the Millbank ABC article on the subject is worth reading fro everyone in this thread. He makes some great points.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/03/13/3452229.htm

[Thomas No.7213745]

>>7213222
You're not really a very good Catholic, since you are blatantly contradicting the Catholic Catechism's section on the Seventh Commandment in favor of a Protestant outlook. Your outlook is also condemned by the Orthodox Church, since you take the side of capitalists as having a right to their accumulation of goods largely based on usury, which falls under extortion

>Extortion; when, under the show of some right, but really against equity and humanity, men make their own advantage of the property, the labors, or even the misfortunes of others; as when creditors oppress their debtors by usury

This is from the Catholic Catechism

>Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

>Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good

>The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.

> Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. the unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."

>Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.

>Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.

>"Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. the goods we possess are not ours, but theirs." "The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity":

[Anonymous No.7214067]

So are you Catholic now, Thomas? or you still dont believe that the Church is where Peter is?

[Anonymous No.7214082]

>>7206877
Or Hegel. Because you don't need god when you have Hegel

[Anonymous No.7214161]

>>7213745
>Extortion; when, under the show of some right, but really against equity and humanity, men make their own advantage of the property, the labors, or even the misfortunes of others; as when creditors oppress their debtors by usury
Indeed they do, but regulating that people are treated fairly is not socialism, it is enforcing already existing laws on human dignity. Socialism means communal property of everything and is assuming the taking of what people have to others by force and not by humane regulations of working conditions. I come from an ex socialist county. Socialism is social cancer in the minds of the people, it turns a heathy, ambitious person in a slag. Life proves this, or at least here it did.
>Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their t possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.
That implies a moral obligation that certainly exists and something a state should enforce through the money it gets from taxes as well as, as I've already stated, upholding already existing legislation on human dignity and other basic rights.
>The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner.
Socialism is theft. It's the theft that has left a deep, deep mark on my anscestors. It stole everything they had and they had little already.
>This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.
This is why you raise tax, if the need arises, and through rational application of the state's resources help the people in need. You do not ban property.
> Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. the unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . .
This in no way assumes socialism, it assumes that governments should follow what they already have in their constitutions. Having a social politic is not socialism.
>Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.
Again, how is this socialism?

[Anonymous No.7214184]

>Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.
Progressive tax that is enforced as well as a political plan that does not pander to the likes of banks and farmaceutic industry?

>"Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. the goods we possess are not ours, but theirs." "The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity"
Indeed, this is why you have taxes. I do not own a castle of gold, but those that do ought to pay luxury taxes. I only ask that I fairly keep what I earn after a reasonable tax.
Right now most of what my family earns is payed in tax, about 70% and it doesn't go anywhere useful. That is a leftover of the socialism my country had. It is a plague upon the worldview and attitude of people Milbank has not had a chance to observe. It kills ambition and the will for honest work and it is inherenty materialistic.
But again, the church is not a charity. It is not here to provide the material conditions. It is the mystical body of Christ. It exists to lead people to eternal life, not to make our earthy lives good.

[Anonymous No.7214236]

>Capitalism/Socialism dichotomy
>Not upholding Catholic Distributism
Three acres and a cow, boys ;)

[Thomas No.7214338]

>>7214161
>Indeed they do, but regulating that people are treated fairly is not socialism, it is enforcing already existing laws on human dignity.
Capitalism cannot function without investment and interests rates, which are a form of usury. So I don't know what system you propose, but capitalism is not it.

You said before that helping the poor shouldn't be forced: it clearly should be.

Christian socialism would, of course, still have to allow for private property (though voluntary renunciation of it would be encouraged), it's just a question of how much property would be public and how much private. House and land, distributism demands everyone have them as private property. Means of production? I think okay if it is mainly used by you and your family, such as a bakery or whatever. But larger means of production should be publicly owned, or at least owned by guilds; this is ensures universal destination of goods, which includes everyone's right to property (that is, entitlement to property, as per the Catechism, not just right to keep it if you already own it--which is limited by reason and the needs of others).

[Anonymous No.7214458]

>>7214338
I'm not proposing a system in itself, I'm just denying that Christianity and socialism can mix because it inherently materialistic and counter productive on a personal level which you either agree with or didn't chose to debate.

Helping the poor by taking what people earned by hard work is hardly my ideal.
Christian socialism you are proposing is a political system which has a large problem, essentially the same as fascism, a state with absolute power and is unrealistic because a perfect system can never be achieved, not even a conceptual legal system. This seems totalitarian and without inner means of correction.
I'm not a capitalist, as it has gaping flaws, but returning to a system even less successful than capitalism with a Christian glued over it is not what we should strive for.