Views on Christian Democrats and Social Democrats?

[JudeObscure84]

What is the view on Che Lives when it comes to Christian Democratic movements and Social Democrats?
Christian Democrats are very popular in Latin America and the Phillipines. Chile has the most famous CD party with a record of uniting with other left socialist parties. In some countries they take a more conservative stance on moral issues but remain centre-left on economics, favoring federalism rather than decentralization. Or undoing over-centralization by Socialist parties to deflate stagnation and unemployment. Edaurdo Lagos, Michelle Bachlette are some famous ones.
Also there are the Social Democrats (which I make a distinction between them and the Democratic Socialists) in the mix. They favor reforms to include federal programs for housing, education and health care. Most are in the tradition of Eduard Bernstein and Eugene Debbs.
Personally I believe most nations are headed in these directions whether Social Democrat or Christian Democrat. The ideas of libertarianism and communism/marxism are dead.

Are these movements caving into what Bernstein called the Crisis in Marxism and are thus traitors like was asserted by Rosa Luxembourg?

[redstar2000]

I think close examination would reveal them to be "coalitions of special interests"...pretty much like all bourgeois parties in the "old" capitalist countries.

They have no "political vision" except that of "keeping the racket going" and "making a big score" for themselves.

They've all demonstrated total indifference to the well-being of ordinary working people...except, perhaps, when people were "in the streets" in very large numbers.

Anything they "give us" will be taken away as soon as they think they can get away with it.

Verdict of history: ALL BASTARDS!

No exceptions.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Social Democracy is a statist form of capitalism that provides temporary relief to the workers in an attempt to beguile them into believing society can change through democratic and statist action. Sure, social democracy can temporarily benefit someone via social programs, but it postpones revolutionary change by giving the people a taste of what leftist politics can do. Social democracy is simply a realization on part of the capitalists that they can sometimes benefit themselves and help the workers at the same time; consequently, they can extend the length of their tyrannical rule.

I am sympathatic to real proletariat (unlike myself) who vote for social democratic parties to get temporary relief. Social democracy is much like a credit card the poor uses to withdraw money they don't have.

[bezdomni]

Christian socialists are much better than christian fascists...that still doesn't say a ton - but they are the most "rational" brand of christian.

Social democrats are mostly people who got fed up with the democratic or labor party...or people who haven't been around long enough to be a communist. Their movement is merely to reform capitalism, and that is what they will get; a reformed capitalism, not socialism.

[More Fire for the People]

The social democrats of the Left-Democrat (US) and Social Democrat (Germany) type are 'useful' to the proletariat in the advancement of a particular reform that is necessary for the further development of the living conditions of the proletariat, ex. universal health insurance, unemployment insurance.

[JudeObscure84]

So you people are fully commited to armed revolutionary struggle for social change? Reformers are mere concessionists?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 08:01 PM
So you people are fully commited to armed revolutionary struggle for social change? Reformers are mere concessionists?
Aquiring 'concessions' is no small feat but revolutionary communists are advocates of revolutionary communism. Reforms are a means, not an end.

[Delirium]

So you people are fully commited to armed revolutionary struggle for social change? Reformers are mere concessionists?

Can you envision the state and capitalism voluntarily dismantaling itself through reformist actions? The establisment will not give up thier power no matter how much we vote that "they should"

Social Democrats are on the right track though, most of us here likely started as reformists. As for the Christians they only do it because that is what god 'tells' them to do.

[JudeObscure84]

Can you envision the state and capitalism voluntarily dismantaling itself through reformist actions? The establisment will not give up thier power no matter how much we vote that "they should"

Capitalism itself is an economic policy. It has no force. Only the state can use force. If you reform the state then you curve mans greed which is the primary factor for inequality, not capitalism itself.


Social Democrats are on the right track though, most of us here likely started as reformists. As for the Christians they only do it because that is what god 'tells' them to do.

Is there something wrong with a faith that calls for social justice?

[JudeObscure84]

Aquiring 'concessions' is no small feat but revolutionary communists are advocates of revolutionary communism. Reforms are a means, not an end.

I see so many similarities between Marxists and Libertarians favoring a pure theoretical science (lassiez-faire) and dialectical materialism (Marxism) over pragmatic practices.

[cyu]

Capitalism itself is an economic policy. It has no force. Only the state can use force.

Capitalism relies on the state for property protection through the use of force. If the employees of a company decide to assume control of that company, it is only through the use of force that they are prevented from doing that. Without the use of force, capitalism would not exist.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:29 PM
Is there something wrong with a faith that calls for social justice?
There is if that same religion says gays should be stoned to death, raped women should marry the rapist, and (according to the book of Romans) we must not question the government because God put it there.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 17 2006, 09:37 PM
The social democrats of the Left-Democrat (US) and Social Democrat (Germany) type are 'useful' to the proletariat in the advancement of a particular reform that is necessary for the further development of the living conditions of the proletariat, ex. universal health insurance, unemployment insurance.
Bah, the democratic party isn't worth shit. And as those in France have recently demonstrated, you "take it to the streets" if you want something done. ;)

[RevMARKSman]

Okay, Christian speaking, cover your ears...
[cover ears]
^^ I don't follow anyone but Jesus. Ah well, no room for a weird person anymore...no room for Socialists who just happen to be Christians...[/cover ears]
Good post Jude.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by nate+Apr 18 2006, 03:31 PM--> (nate @ Apr 18 2006, 03:31 PM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 17 2006, 09:37 PM
The social democrats of the Left-Democrat (US) and Social Democrat (Germany) type are 'useful' to the proletariat in the advancement of a particular reform that is necessary for the further development of the living conditions of the proletariat, ex. universal health insurance, unemployment insurance.
Bah, the democratic party isn't worth shit. And as those in France have recently demonstrated, you "take it to the streets" if you want something done. ;) [/b]
Yes, reforms seemed to have been replaced by concessions in Europe. However, the same situation does not exist here in the United States but it is very well on that track. It 's a manifestation of one of the contradistinction of capitalism — capitalism wants to maximize profits via neoliberal global capitalism rendering reform impossible. Rather than appease the proletariat, the capitalists are caving in before a total collapse is possible.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 04:37 PM
Okay, Christian speaking, cover your ears...
[cover ears]
^^ I don't follow anyone but Jesus. I honestly don't really care about the moral statements of the Old Testament or Paul. Ah well, no room for a weird person anymore...no room for Socialists who just happen to be Christians...[/cover ears]
Good post Jude.
Always a bit of a "jolt" when a female Christian shows up on this board...almost as shocking as a "pro-Nazi" Jew would be.

The New Testament may not be quite as misogynistic as the Qu'ran...but it's pretty bad!

Women are explicitly told to be "submissive" to their husbands...and to shut up in church.

Why any modern women would want to get involved with anything like that is incomprehensible.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 18 2006, 10:55 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 18 2006, 10:55 PM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 04:37 PM
Okay, Christian speaking, cover your ears...
[cover ears]
^^ I don't follow anyone but Jesus. I honestly don't really care about the moral statements of the Old Testament or Paul. Ah well, no room for a weird person anymore...no room for Socialists who just happen to be Christians...[/cover ears]
Good post Jude.
Always a bit of a "jolt" when a female Christian shows up on this board...almost as shocking as a "pro-Nazi" Jew would be.

The New Testament may not be quite as misogynistic as the Qu'ran...but it's pretty bad!

Women are explicitly told to be "submissive" to their husbands...and to shut up in church.

Why any modern women would want to get involved with anything like that is incomprehensible.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
that is because mr.priest doesn't shows the dark side of the bible. ;)

most of my christian friends become overtly shocked when they read the most reactionary parts of the bible.

[bezdomni]

You are both going to hell. ;)

[JudeObscure84]

Always a bit of a "jolt" when a female Christian shows up on this board...almost as shocking as a "pro-Nazi" Jew would be.

The New Testament may not be quite as misogynistic as the Qu'ran...but it's pretty bad!

Women are explicitly told to be "submissive" to their husbands...and to shut up in church.

Why any modern women would want to get involved with anything like that is incomprehensible.

I believe you are taking it out of context. The women are supposed to let the man lead the relationship. I dont know what woman cut your balls off, but you dont have to be Christian to understand this.

And plus it says that men are supposed to love thier wife like they love Christ, unto death. Why would you die for someone you dont respect or care for? The anti-christian tones in here are so ridiculous.



that is because mr.priest doesn't shows the dark side of the bible.

most of my christian friends become overtly shocked when they read the most reactionary parts of the bible.

You mean like the part where the law was done away with in Christ and the comands are to love your neighbor and preach the Gospel? So reactionary indeed!

Maybe I should flip to the reactionary elements in the writings of Marx, Che, Mao and Lenin?


Yes, reforms seemed to have been replaced by concessions in Europe. However, the same situation does not exist here in the United States but it is very well on that track. It 's a manifestation of one of the contradistinction of capitalism — capitalism wants to maximize profits via neoliberal global capitalism rendering reform impossible. Rather than appease the proletariat, the capitalists are caving in before a total collapse is possible.

You people are bonkers. The United States is a mixed economy. The rhetoric is that the GOP supports free trade, yada yada, but true free trade died out with the Civil War and the extermination of the CSA* (plus the British Empire in WWI). Since then the US has been on a track of moderate subsidization. No Libertarians believe the US is a total free market society or that any country practices such. The compromise that has shifted most nations into global power is strong market economies with government benefits and social spending. Social/Liberal Democracy is the future. The reformers have done more for the proletariat than any Commie revolution has ever done.



*The 80's saw a re-emergence of neo-confederates, austrian schoolers, libertarians, neo-liberals and paleo-conservatives dominating the Republican party solidifying the completion of the Southern Stradegy. The South wants to rise again!

[theraven]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+Apr 18 2006, 09:07 PM--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ Apr 18 2006, 09:07 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 10:29 PM
Is there something wrong with a faith that calls for social justice?
There is if that same religion says gays should be stoned to death, raped women should marry the rapist, and (according to the book of Romans) we must not question the government because God put it there. [/b]
actually the reason for the women marrying the rapist was a punsihemmt to the rpaist and for the womens benifit. because back then a raped women would have a great deal of torbel finding a hsuband, so her rapist was really the only opiton

[black magick hustla]

I believe you are taking it out of context. The women are supposed to let the man lead the relationship. I dont know what woman cut your balls off, but you dont have to be Christian to understand this.


you are a sexist piece of shit.

why should i understand this? because the patriarchal society we live in obviously constructs us with such reactionary bullshit?

why would we need to lead the relationship? because we are mentally stronger than women?

is that what you mean?



Maybe I should flip to the reactionary elements in the writings of Marx, Che, Mao and Lenin?


there is a problem there buddy.

those people (you chose the most reactionary people from the marxist milliey though) are not god. their word is not forcefully the absolute truth-

the bible is the unrefutable word of god, you cannot even think about questioning it.

you are mortal garbage compared to the divinity of god.


You mean like the part where the law was done away with in Christ and the comands are to love your neighbor and preach the Gospel? So reactionary indeed!

no.

the parts were slavery is justified, were women are treated as shit, and were whole cities are burnt because they are filled withf gay people.

such is the love of god. :wub:

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 04:35 AM
actually the reason for the women marrying the rapist was a punsihemmt to the rpaist and for the womens benifit. because back then a raped women would have a great deal of torbel finding a hsuband, so her rapist was really the only opiton
That's pretty shoddy half-logic there.

[JudeObscure84]

you are a sexist piece of shit.

Forgive me for wanting to provide for a woman.


why should i understand this? because the patriarchal society we live in obviously constructs us with such reactionary bullshit?

And you dont think radical feminism is reactionary in its approach to men?


why would we need to lead the relationship? because we are mentally stronger than women?

What are you looking for a sugar momma? I'm speaking of the basic family structure.


is that what you mean?

Physically and mentally, yes. Thats why I think women should be protected first above men.

[JudeObscure84]

there is a problem there buddy.

No problem.


those people (you chose the most reactionary people from the marxist milliey though) are not god. their word is not forcefully the absolute truth-
They preached there was no god and they sure as hell heeded thier view of truth with force.


the bible is the unrefutable word of god, you cannot even think about questioning it.
Ofcourse, but the point is not that other people cannot preach truth, but that they work on a corresponding truth while the Bible is revelationary.


you are mortal garbage compared to the divinity of god.
'No doubt. I dont dispute that. But you would have to presuppose that my God exists and his word is truth in order to believe that. Che, Marx and Mao did not believe in a God and thus corresponded with the world the best way they knew how; by interpreting it by thier own reason. But you cannot tell me that no one heeded his words as truth and marched to thier death following thier mantra. Just because they denied an absolute truth doesnt mean they werent themselves advocating a truth. You cannot say there is no absolute truth, absolutely.


no.

the parts were slavery is justified, were women are treated as shit, and were whole cities are burnt because they are filled withf gay people.

such is the love of god.

I dont think slavery was justified in the sense that you think it was. It was more like indentured servitude, for God decried the type of slavery the Egyptians enforced on the Jews, and issued laws for thier protection.
All that is spurious though because it was all a means to end in which God constructed a nation built on laws he knew men would never follow. He taught that man cannot live in the bondage of Biblical law which the Rabbis asserted as merit to enter heaven. He gave the Israelis what they wanted, a nation.

Christ did away with the law and proposed that no man is justified by the law. To believe in him and follow his examples is upholding the law without legalization, but through faith that his word is truth and he is who he says he is.

[Sentinel]

Forgive me for wanting to provide for a woman.

That wasn't why he called you a sexist. It was because of your ambition to 'lead' a relationship, and thus force a woman into submission.


Physically and mentally, yes. Thats why I think women should be protected first above men.

Is that the official stance on this issue among social democrats in the US? If so, the swedish social democrats, although sellout class-traitors as well, seem like revolutionaries in comparison.

I find your views on women utterly reactionary and sexist, and unacceptable. :angry:

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:21 PM


Forgive me for wanting to provide for a woman.


By doing so, you take away her ability to provide for herself....likely because you believe women are incapable of caring for themselves.

There is a difference between caring for someone and believing that you have an obligation to "provide" for someone. You have no obligation to take care of a women, because she can do it herself. However, if you really care for somebody and both are willing to engage in a mutualistic relationship in which both parties provide for one another in faculities in which they are lacking - then it is a fair and non-exploitative relationship.

The traditional male being the "bread winner" and the female being the "baby dropper" is extremely sexist and should be combated.

[JudeObscure84]

That wasn't why he called you a sexist. It was because of your ambition to 'lead' a relationship, and thus force a woman into submission.

How is it submission to want to provide the best for your wife and kids? I am not saying that she can't adventure into her own personal desires, but that I am willing to meet her needs. You guys are taking this WAY out of proportion.


Is that the official stance on this issue among social democrats in the US? If so, the swedish social democrats, although sellout class-traitors as well, seem like revolutionaries in comparison.

I find your views on women utterly reactionary and sexist, and unacceptable.

I find your misrepresentation of my views to be utterly reactionary. There is no dominating factor in the way I would treat a wife.


By doing so, you take away her ability to provide for herself....likely because you believe women are incapable of caring for themselves

Look at the drivel you people are conjuring up from debating too many real reactionaries! I am not one to say that women belong in the kitchen, but that men should not lose the fact that they are men and lay any burden on a woman for the sake of giving her independece. Do you believe in women in combat? Or that they shouldn't be the first to be let off a sinking ship along with children?
I am speaking of general things, not wifebeating patrarchial submission which you jackels seem to be trying to pin me under.



There is a difference between caring for someone and believing that you have an obligation to "provide" for someone. You have no obligation to take care of a women, because she can do it herself. However, if you really care for somebody and both are willing to engage in a mutualistic relationship in which both parties provide for one another in faculities in which they are lacking - then it is a fair and non-exploitative relationship.

Way to understand my actual point and then proceed to mock my stance as something completlely polar.


The traditional male being the "bread winner" and the female being the "baby dropper" is extremely sexist and should be combated.

If you believed that this was my stance than you're the reactionary, not me.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I would advocate children going off a sinking ship first - but not women. Since I don't support imperialist war, I do not support women or men engaging in it. Women do have every right that men do when it comes to engaging in combat (if they so wish).

Most philosophies have been impacted by reactionary views. Christianity, however, is primarily reactionary and utter bullshit. And you are sexist whether you want to admit it or not.

[JudeObscure84]

I would advocate children going off a sinking ship first - but not women. Since I don't support imperialist war, I do not support women or men engaging in it. Women do have every right that men do when it comes to engaging in combat (if they so wish).

Not women? Ok, well then you are an immoral cog who would shove a woman to the side to save your own hide. Also, on the notion of combat, lets say it were a proletariat revolution upon freeing a society from a dicatatorship, would you want your wife to fight? The notion is not that you should force but offer to dismiss the burden


Most philosophies have been impacted by reactionary views. Christianity, however, is primarily reactionary and utter bullshit. And you are sexist whether you want to admit it or not.

Most philosophies have been impacted by reactionary views upon corresponding with the world; i.e. through thier own reason. So humans have rationally come up with reactionary views towards women to statisfy their egos. Christianity on the other hand is not primarily reactionary and asks to offer your life for your wife, love her like you would love Christ (which means unto death) and reversed roles for women that were once subjigated by the Jewish legalism.
The point is to have mutally exclusive roles. The Bible also says for the men to submit to their wives. This was unheard of in the Messianic Israel or Emperial Rome.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 10:09 PM

I would advocate children going off a sinking ship first - but not women. Since I don't support imperialist war, I do not support women or men engaging in it. Women do have every right that men do when it comes to engaging in combat (if they so wish).

Not women? Ok, well then you are an immoral cog who would shove a woman to the side to save your own hide. Also, on the notion of combat, lets say it were a proletariat revolution upon freeing a society from a dicatatorship, would you want your wife to fight? The notion is not that you should force but offer to dismiss the burden
Since I believe in valuing women and men of the same age equally I am immoral now? If that's not a Christian and sexist attitude, I don't know what is. Furthermore, the burden of armed combat should be shared by all those capable and willing to fight in it. Some women are revolutionaries, and they don't want to cook while the men go off to create communism.

Would I want my wife to fight? It would probably make me uncomfortable, but it is equally selfish to place the burden on her? She does not want to worry about my life while I am fighting. How would she feel if she knew I died in battle? What if she could have saved me? Most men have been conditioned to easily march off to war and fight. It takes a real man to discuss issues with his wife/partner and come up with a common solution to the problem. If my wife wanted to go to war, I would probably let her (assuming I am married, which I am not).

[JudeObscure84]

Since I believe in valuing women and men of the same age equally I am immoral now?

You hide behind a sense of morality thats underscored with selfishness.


Furthermore, the burden of armed combat should be shared by all those capable and willing to fight in it. Some women are revolutionaries, and they don't want to cook while the men go off to create communism.

If women choose to serve I am not in the position to force them not to. But then again I wouldnt regard an infiltry of women as being merciless against an army of brute men. Now I highly doubt that you would admit to getting your ass kicked by a lady, but in this sense I feel that if I had a platoon, I would want it filled with grunts not skirts.


Would I want my wife to fight? It would probably make me uncomfortable, but it is equally selfish to place the burden on her?

Yes, I would hope that if you had a family you would tell her to take care of the kids. If there is no family dont reduce her to fighting your battles, even if she means well.


She does not want to worry about my life while I am fighting. How would she feel if she knew I died in battle?

How would she feel if she saw you DIE in battle?


What if she could have saved me?

And a male medic in the field could not? What are you implying? That your wife would have an upper hand at saving your life over a male soldier?

Most men have been conditioned to easily march off to war and fight.
Yes, most men. Women have been subject to civilian casualties as a result of targeting by regimes.


It takes a real man to discuss issues with his wife/partner and come up with a common solution to the problem. If my wife wanted to go to war, I would probably let her (assuming I am married, which I am not).

If she wants to fight. Let her defend the home in case the invasion hits home and the troops have all been killed. Its not sexist to ask your wife to heed your advice and not fight in a gruesome battle.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:50 PM
How is it submission to want to provide the best for your wife and kids? I am not saying that she can't adventure into her own personal desires, but that I am willing to meet her needs. You guys are taking this WAY out of proportion.
Are you claiming not to have typed

The women are supposed to let the man lead the relationship. I dont know what woman cut your balls off, but you dont have to be Christian to understand this.
this?

Don't try to wriggle out of this. You can't say something as sexist as this, then claim that all you said you wanted was to 'provide the best for your wife and kids'. That's an outright lie and you know it. The misogynistic garble of your first post was indefensible so you tried to pretend you didn't say it...but this is a message board! We can look back at what you said!

:angry:

[RevMARKSman]

If there is no family dont reduce her to fighting your battles

Wait...so all battles are the territory of the man now? That's laughable. Women are part of this world, part of conflicts, and we deserve to have equal status with men. This ain't just the men's battle. It's everyone's.

[JudeObscure84]

Don't try to wriggle out of this. You can't say something as sexist as this, then claim that all you said you wanted was to 'provide the best for your wife and kids'. That's an outright lie and you know it. The misogynistic garble of your first post was indefensible so you tried to pretend you didn't say it...but this is a message board! We can look back at what you said

I am not trying to wiggle my way out of anything. I am not taking back anything I said so you can post all of the things i have said before. I was harping to fact that the statements by some other members seemed well....pansy. If you find that sexist then well that is you. To me it was a jab at what I found to be a reactionary feminist position.




Wait...so all battles are the territory of the man now? That's laughable. Women are part of this world, part of conflicts, and we deserve to have equal status with men. This ain't just the men's battle. It's everyone's.

You guys would make horrible generals. Either your number of women in battle has to be limited or zero because that would give the enemy a chance to counter that with a brigade full of brute men. Now how many of you are willing to admit in this forum that they have been beaten up phisically by a female? If you can admit it then you make a good point.

[Fistful of Steel]

I can find common ground with a lot of religious anarchists/communists do to my sometimes belief in God, but Christian Democrats aren't especially my cup of tea, nor plain olds social democrats (although I do believe that the Scandinavian countries are in a much more preferable state than most of Western civilization). I think that coalitions between the left and the center left are only viable when opposing a greater evil, i.e. Fascism.

[JudeObscure84]

I can find common ground with a lot of religious anarchists/communists do to my sometimes belief in God, but Christian Democrats aren't especially my cup of tea, nor plain olds social democrats (although I do believe that the Scandinavian countries are in a much more preferable state than most of Western civilization). I think that coalitions between the left and the center left are only viable when opposing a greater evil, i.e. Fascism.

Centre left coalitions were adament against right wing dictatorships and Soviet stranglehold on third world countries and the Eastern bloc during the Cold War.

Many of them are in power now like Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel, Adam Michnik and Shroeder in Germany. And please do not use the Iraq War as reference against Blair because Jaque Chirac is a conservative, in favor of right wing rule in Latin America and the Mid East and he opposed the Iraq War, while Havel, Michnik favored. Only Shroeder opposed.

There have been many Christian centre-left coalitions like that of Bonhoeffer and Sophie Scholl during the Nazi regime, Oscar Romero, Jose Ramos Horta during the East Timor Crisis and dont forget about the abolitionists during the Civil War.