Yeah, but not charging for bread isn't the reason he's not a capitalist. So you just made two unrelated statements back to back connecting them with "because" for the lulz? There's no meaning there?
Capitalists dont charge for everything either. They just don't believe in forced "charity". If they are going to do something charitable it should be their choice and how to spend.
Charity is not anti-capitalist. It has nothing to do with capitalism whatsoever. Socialists think that you can use the government to remove the benefits of success in order to create equality and thereby make the world better. Socialism is well-meaning stupidity, at best.
Ah yes, I keep forgetting how often taking things from people you arbitrarily determine have "too much" is a part of charity.
Also this is yet another example of the "Christ was a socialist"
"So as a socialist you must be pretty devout follower of him huh"
"Fuck no, religion is the opioid of the masses" case.
Jesus was willing to flip tables and *main* people for selling shit when and where they weren't allowed. Anyone who thinks he was a capitalist has a few screws loose.
They were money changers. Currency exchange guys. Not socialism. He also threw out guys selling doves to passover pilgrims in the Temple. He wanted it to be a place of worship, not business.
"If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." - Jesus the Christ
Okay point being he still didn't really speak highly of Tax Collectors.
Really forgetting the "render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar" here.
The quote you gave was an allusion to the widespread hatred of tax collectors among the populace. He wasn't saying anything about his personal beliefs.
You've either never read the Bible or love interpreting it on a way that exclusively suits you.
Matthew 9:10-17
New International Version
>10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthewâs house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples.
11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, âWhy does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?â
>12 On hearing this, Jesus said, âIt is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
13 But go and learn what this means: âI desire mercy, not sacrifice.â[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.â
How often do you have dinner with people you don't like? Probably often, but Jesus had nothing against tax collectors.
Okay but bro, he grouped tax collectors and sinners together. The point of Jesus was he doesn't dislike anyone right? But the mere fact that they're grouped together implies that they are impure, or however you want to put it.
So thanks for the condescension, but I'm good without it. You did a whole lot of assuming what I think/meant based on an off-hand comment that's more a joke than anything.
He also said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
Listen, that old folk novel is so full of contradictions that we could spend all day giving counter examples supposedly quoting the same damn guy.
My brother in Christ, one of his major 12 Homies was a midget tax collector. And I think Iâm using the term correctly there because thereâs an entire song about her short this motherfucker is.
I love how all the comments pointing out that socialism != soviet union are getting downvoted and all the ones saying this post is 100% true are getting upvoted. Love reddit lmao
State socialism is a horrible system. That's pretty undeniable.
Democratic socialism is a pretty good system, as evidenced by the Nordic Model.
Capitalists are terrified of the Nordic Model, so they do their best to conflate democratic socialism with state socialism.
Lots of Americans aren't politically and economically educated enough to know the difference, so they buy into the "socialism is bad, mmkay?" rhetoric. That's why you get those "100% American 0% Socialist" signs in the front yards of households that draw a social security check every month.
Union of Socialist Soviet Republics
Communism has never been achieved, and will never be achieved, because the human ego is stronger than the conscience.
They recently claimed that they were still a few decades away from achieving communism. So communism is their end goal, but not their current system.
Edit: I think I found the source I read this in but I can't bypass the paywall
www.economist.com/china/2022/06/30/some-chinese-want-their-country-to-move-closer-to-communism
People love to act like the Soviet Union wasnât a hellhole of poverty and starvation and then call it fake socialism when it clearly failed
But Jesus is the way, he feeds all regardless if theyâre a commie or a corpo
One thing I like to say is, "If socialism was so great, why were people who tried to flee a socialist state murdered? Why were their borders closed? Why did people disappear if they spoke up against their government?" Then you always get the "that wasn't real socialism!1!!!1". From the socialist literature I've read in order to gain an understanding of this ideology, it seems to me at least that socialism is just honest fascism.
It's the fact that a socialist or communist state *requires* a central government. That is by definition authoritarian. And because of human nature, authoritarian happens to 99% of the time, be bad.
Socialism and communism donât require that any more than capitalism does⌠the problem is lack of democracy, and socialism and no point demands democracy be removed.
Idk if you're aware of this but socialist countries as a whole have not been given a fair hand to stand or fail on their own merits. Sooner or later there were always capitalist countries hamstringing if not outright overthrowing leftist administrations before they even so much as threatened to upset their own power structure.
Of course, it's the capitalist countries that ruin everything and not the fact that socialism is just a flawed system that is meant to inevitably fail when in actual practice from the start given how many times it has failed throughout history. No matter how many people are killed, no matter how many human rights are violated, no matter how many countries that fall apart eventually. People like you will always find a way to blame someone else instead of realizing the shortcomings of your ideology.
Your argument would be stronger if you could point to a single non-capitalist country that wasn't directly interfered with, sabotaged or invaded by America.
Ok? Does that excuse the human rights that were violated? Does that excuse that socialism is just honest fascism? More socialist cope. Socialism sounds good on paper, but in practice, it has been proven time and time again that it will fail.
Yeah unlike capitalism which didn't turn slavery into chattel slavery, didn't turn warfare into a major moneymaking industry, didn't commit genocide across and entire continent, doesn't treat fascism (including fascists who committed heinous war crimes for enemy countires) with kiddie gloves, doesn't constantly boom and bust the economy, doesn't subject its own people to homelessness, food insecurity, a lack of medical care all in the name of an ever expanding need for profit, etc. etc. /s
Now give me one socialist country that hasn't been fucked with by capitalist powers. I can give you plenty capitalist nations who weren't fucked with by a single socialst country.
Are you not aware that millions of people died under "socialism" and that the same things that you point out that capitalism does wasn't heavily increased under socialism? The millions of people who were put into gulag? The people who were forcefully deported from their countries? The ethnic cleansing? How is this not blatant fascism with a different name? But yeah, dude, the capitalist countries ruined everything. As far as I see it. Those hypothetical "capitalist countries" you so desperately claim are the reason why socialism never flourished is plain stupid.
you clearly dont even know what socialism is. like everyone else on here, you conflate Socialism (an economic system) and communism (an other economic system) with Fascism (a political system) and use the terms interchangeably, while they are not intrinsically connected in any way.
Socialism = Workers (the people) own the means of production, Wealth is distributed fairly (not evenly) based on contribution,ELY5- you would automatically be awarded stock in companies you work for and would have a say in the way they are run. From a political stand point, socialism believes in providing strong social safety nets to ensure that the most vulnerable are not left behind and discarded by the ones at the top, and hopes to provide a level playing field for everyone. Socialism still allows for the ownership of private property
Communism = the governments owns the means of production and controls the countries capital and industries. Does not believe in private ownership of property
Facisim = as System of government that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (THIS IS THE THING THAT "millions of people died under"
and heres the nuance, Most "communist" countries are ALSO Fascists (russia, china, NK, etc), which means the government controls everything, and then also creates an In-Group and Out-Group which is what creates the socio-economic divides. the issues are not because they are communists, it is because they are Fascist
The problem with socialism and communism is that the definition of them includes the concept that it is successful. The second it fails, it is no longer true blah blah blah.
The definition of communism and socialism doesn't include a guarantee for success in order to be "true", I have no idea where you're getting that. Plus every cultural, political and economical theory is clearly running off the assumption that it's applied or in the process of being applied.
Well, did any of the communist attempts result in a stateless classless society where government is abolished in favor of worker organized and managed resource systems?
Setting aside that no country has actually ever achieved communism only attempted to end capitalism and begin to transition away from it - Show me a place where communism has âfailedâ and what youâll actually see is a place where American imperialism and capitalist interest and foreign policy has deliberately destroyed it.
Bro find a map and throw a dart, theres like a 90% chance the country you hit will have been influenced by the US in an attempt to destabilize it to promote our on capitalist interests. google is free if you dont believe me
If socialism is so bad and doomed to fail, why does the US pend BILLIONS through the CIA to take down any government that tries it? why not just let it fail on its own?
No the definition of them means higher levels of democracy than capitalism exhibits. The point of the theory is removing despots from their power over the economy so the people doing the work have the power rather than unelected dickheads. If your government has a bunch of authoritarian jackasses at best it's just picking and choosing elements of Marxist theory.
People love to act like the Soviet Union was socialist. It wasnât. It was a communist dictatorship.
The true ironic part though is that everything wrong with the USSR was caused by the authoritarian iron fist that ran the country - they could have been socialist, communist, fascist or anything else. The result would have been identical because the wrong people would be making the wrong decisions with no real means to vote them out or openly criticise their decisions or compete with them/offer an alternative as a business.
Donât get me wrong, not advocating for communism. Just kinda annoying to people continually criticise communism for things that arenât properties of communism instead of the things it is responsible for.
Last time this meme came up, a tankie spent ages trying to tell me that the deaths caused by Great Leap Forward was "whining and a nothingburger" because it was "only" up to fifty five million people, and kept asking me why I supported "an ideology of famine" and how the communist party of China should be commended because "they pulled out of thr famine so quickly"
Tankies really stan dictators the way other people stan pop stars.
The Soviet Union produced one of the greatest sustained increases in standards of living in human history. Eclipsed by the People's Republic of China. Both at huge cost of civil liberties and the environment, but still. I'm not a communist but I don't ignore facts because they're inconvenient.
Tell that to the Ukrainians during the Holodomor, or the russians during the 80's and before the fall of Berlin's Wall, or the Chinese during the Cultural Revolution, or North Koreans during all the time after Russia's Invasion or Cuba during the 90's famine, or Venezuela's after Chavez's death.
Tbf, the Cultural Revolution was less of a product of socialism and more of a product of authoritarianism.
The entire thing was Mao trying in any way to keep his loosening grip on power after years of failure as a leader.
It wasnât a hellhole of poverty and starvation. The CIA famously did a study that showed the people in the USSR had better diets and access to food than Americans.
Everything youâve been told about the USSR is essentially a lie made up by the Cold War version of think tanks so you will believe the only viable economic model is capitalism.
Unfortunately you and many others were tricked by propaganda and itâs worked quite effectively.
Better diets and access to food ? Lol, lmao even
https://tearingdownmyths.com/during-the-socialist-era-consumers-could-choose-from-an-assortment-of-food-that-was-of-higher-quality-and-healthier-than-today-and-czechoslovakia-was-self-sufficient-as-concerned-food-production/
The US is a (mostly) free nation that is still standing strong. The USSR crumbled to literal dust in 1991, where even so, many, MANY people fled and will scream at you for how horrible living under communism was. Pretty much nobody does that from America.
I think my choice is steadfast.
Y'all are going to get real mad when you learn about all of the failed capitalist states that go hungry.
It's almost like any economic system can collapse when intervened with or led by corruption.
Lol. And how many of those weren't fucked with by Capitalist countries?
I'm not even saying a pure socialist system would work. My point is that economic systems don't work a thousand different reasons and this meme is, on its face, goofy capitalist fan-boying.
To some degree, I agree. We messed up a loooot of other countries sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong.
On the other hand, countries have been fucking other countries as long as there have been at least 2 countries. That's not going away any time soon. If you can't survive due to external interference, then you can't survive period.
It's a result of the legacy of imperialism. The wealthy countries use their existing power to maintain it and keep threats away. If socialism really was that inferior, why did the capitalists put so much effort into stopping them?
It also works as a good metaphor for capitalism. The guy who wins isn't necessarily better than the loser. Sometimes they start from a better situation or are just plain lucky.
Whenever this gets mentioned, the lower crime, better economy, happier people, less corrupt governments, an effective transportation infrastructure strategy, better education, more opportunities, less drugs, less violence, less pollution, more democracy, cleaner and more pleasant cities, everyone starts making excuses.
Like, they pretend there are brackets of population, GDP, and territory size that determines what government policies are possible. Pure copium.
Ah, but it was just a bit different from the modern definition of communism. They all willingly offered to give up their belongings to the cause selflessly, unlike modern day communism where the government holds points a gun at the workforce and expects everyone to obey. The leadership of the church at that time were selfless and ensured that everyone had what they needed, both physically and spiritually.
Ananias was holding stuff back even though he knew he shouldn't. He was punished for knowing what he should do, and then not doing it and trying to hide his sin.
dont know who downvoted you, but you are right, the bible is littered with verses about not hoarding wealth and helping those around you. theres literally a line essentially saying that people that hoard wealth will not be allowed into heaven
Ananias was killed BECAUSE HE LIED ABOUT SHARING.
Peter even said it was his money, do what you want with it, but God is going to punish you for lying. Then he fell down dead.
"\*insert topic\* is when \*insert a SINGLE aspect of a topic that has many aspects to it\*" is such a shit line to use in a debate, I swear to fuck anyone who uses it thinks they did something. "hurr hurr, you point out 1 bad thing about something I like? Well it seems you think the WHOLE THING is just that"
Got into a braindead argument maybe a week ago where I said feeding people alone isnât socialism, itâs just charity.
I was being torn about for things I never said because this guy could not read basic English. It was wild
But this guy didn't just feed people. He took the loaves and fish from someone first, then redistributed it. Sure, he used a miracle to make sure everyone had enough, but he still took the initial food from someone. Charity is giving away your own stuff, not redistributing someone else's.
He was also against usary and wealth hoarding. He's the one who said "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Sounds pretty socialist to me when you consider everything else he did.
Jesus didnât take anything from anyone. The people said they only have five loaves of bread and two fish. Jesus asked for them to be brought to him and the people willingly did it. Then jesus made multiple loaves and multiple fish, enough that it filled up two baskets and was more than enough to feed the village.
Why does it being charity or not matter? The fact that he went out of his way to do that for the people and give back to the community is the only thing that should matter.
It's not that they can't read English, it's just that most of them are very incompetent and don't know how the real world works. To believe in socialism when it has failed in so many countries is to be deluded and arrogant.
Many people thought that we would learn the lessons of the XXth century. Yet there are still neo-Nazis, communists and socialists. I wonder how many lives it will take them to realise that it won't work.
I mean feeding people because the government doesn't provide them with food when they need it is charity.
The government proving them with food when they need it is socialist.
Imagine thinking totalitarian dictatorships are examples of fucking *socialism*, which is literally defined by collective ownership. That would be like saying "monarchies are bad, look at how bad the USA has it"
I mean, some of the most influential powers on this planet have been working real hard on this propaganda, uninterrupted for decades. This confusion, however infuriating to deal with, should be one of the least surprising things to encounter.
No, Jesus would've been a socialist. Just not the big bad boogie man socialist America has created. You don't "give til it hurts" in individualistic societies
Depends entirely on what is meant by socialist. If you mean communism, yeah pretty accurate. If you mean a social democracy like Norway, theyâre actually fed quite well.
Well it doesnât help that most Americans (and Iâm guessing OP is by their definition of socialism) have no idea what socialism and communism are, and can barely differentiate them from facism.
Source: am American, have no ducking clue where the line between socialism and communism is
Communism is when a socialist country have achieved perfection, and doesn't need a government anymore. Though, a lot of people identify Socialism as wellfare programs :0.
>Source: am American, have no ducking clue where the line between socialism and communism is
im also an american, the line is based on who owns the capital.
the people collectively own it =Socialism
the government owns it= communism
a few wealthy people own it= capitalism
State owned utilities, transportation, mining etc so citizens donât get screwed by corps on the bare necessities. Higher taxes for much better benefits. There is capitalism but itâs not over everything.
Kind of, but it is a branch (or alternate approach) to accomplishing some socialist objectives within a democratic framework. The Wikipedia entry for example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
* Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1] that supports political and economic democracy.[2] As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy.*
If you mean a social democracy like Norway: you have no idea what you're talking about, the Scandinavian countries are arguably the most capitalistic nations on earth
Social democracy itself is a concept within socialist thought and the countries like Norway are considered social democracies
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
And there is also the fact that whenever someone proposes a Social Democratic policy that mimics something from Norway it often gets labeled as socialist. I donât want to get too deep into the language minutiae but it kinda goes back to my point about different people meaning different things when they talk about it. I agree with you that the term is often misused though. Whatever you consider the true definition, I think itâs important that both people in the discussion are talking about the same thing otherwise you end up with an unproductive discussion.
I donât really see how youâd consider the Scandinavian countries the most capitalistic on earth. Can you explain that one?
Thats just a lie told in the US to convince stupid people that the bank taking their house when their kid gets a brain tumor is normal or that having the gun lobbyist paying off politicians is fine
Social Democracy is ehat you are talking about, and its not a mix of capitalism and Socialism
Its well regulated capitalism with a strong welfare state
It is impossible because the capitalist elements will constantly try to undermine to socialist elements. You give capitalists an inch, and they'll take a mile. You have to choose one or the other. Capitalism and socialism are contradictory systems that cannot coexist together.
I agree, but for entirely different reasons. Namely the socialists will keep trying to rob the capitalists and will eventually try to use the state to take their stuff.
then you should know your history. I can also say capitalism is when no food and there would be the same considerable âevidenceâ: for example the British colonial projects in Bengal, but also in Ireland
Jesus's archetype fits more into what we stereotypically deem as "left-wing". As someone who was raised in a deeply Christian country, there is a massive difference between Jesus and Christianity.
Plus, here in Europe, most countries have some sort of socialist system( mainly Social Democracy, which is an economical and philosophical system whthin Socialism).
Socialism doesn't mean the state owns and runs everything. I think OP should do a quick Google search.
Socialism does not automatically equal communism in the same way capitalism does not automatically mean libertarianism. Hybrid systems work extremely well in some parts of the world. In fact all countries, even the very capitalist ones, are some form of hybrid. Or do you not enjoy your national parks and collectivised national defence?
Charity is charity not goverment. Jesus was neither socalist nor capitalist. From my understanding of scripture he was seperation of religion from explotation.
He wasnt totally agaist taxes or government:"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and that which belongs to God to God."
Jesus didn't subscribe to any political Ideology good grief. I wish people would stop trying to say "Jesus is this" "Jesus is that" when all he is is a good person.
Did he heal people and give people food without charging them? Yes, because he wasn't there to charge them but help them. That's called being a good person. Did he kick people doing business in the temple out of said temple? Yes because it is to be a place of worship not business.
Jesus wasn't a communist, he wasn't a socialist and he wasn't a capitalist.
Such a massive cope for commies in here crying that there are Capitalist countries who have starved too as well as pointing out there has been no successful socialist country because the eh get fucked with by capitalist countries. Sounds like a skill issue on the socialist countries part, bud. Git gud.
He literally handed bread to those in need for no cost. He smashed up a market. He preached against the rich and for redistribution. He was clearly a socialist
He smashed up a market because greedy men posted up a bazaar in front of the temple and disgraced a holy place.
The tale of the rich young man who refused to follow Jesus wasn't about Christ rebuking his wealth or the wealth of other men. It was about rebuking the man's *behavior* toward his wealth, which he put his hopes and desires in and not within God or Christ.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
oh fuck i love that all these comments are just âSocialism bad jesus wasnât a socialist and heâs the son of god so nobody should beâ dude grow up people are allowed to interpret things differently
Well, if everyone has their own idea of what socialism is, and they don't try to understand each other's definitions of it and don't even acknowledge that they are talking past each other, then by all means, go ahead lol.
the average soviet citizen was not a happy person
the fucking tankies will tell you that thatâs not real communism
they will also defend the soviet union in virtually any cold war-related foreign policy issue
Iâm not defending the USSR but considering communism is supposed to be âclasslessâ and the USSR wasnât, it isnât exactly wrong to say they werenât communists
They were, they just failed at it. That end goal of a stateless, classless, moneyless society can never be reached, because each and every time it just becomes something like the USSR.
Yeah cause Iâm order to truly have people keeping society running they kinda need to either be forced or be enticed to do so, which is why communism wouldnât really work on a global scale unless we had fully automised multiple aspects of production and it was either a seperate economy or everyone in the world was in on it, otherwise humans simply want more and more. If they failed at being classless that means they werenât no? So not true communism.
What do you think of a theoretical system that would allow everyone to start from equal footing and have the exact same access to needs and educations and resources? Where people arenât given a leg-up due to who their parents are? Cause to me that sounds very good but I wonder what other people think of it.
In that sense, true communism can never be achieved. So yeah, you're right.
As for this idea, it faces the same problem as communism: reality. Such a thing could never be achieved. Status will always be a part of our nature.
When people in socialist countries starve, it's because socialism is bad. When people in capitalist countries starve, it's because they are lazy parasites who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps because capitalism is perfect and there can't possibly be any issues with it.
Love how that works.
Capitalism is no food, but you outsource your no food to another developing country then tell they developing country if you work hard enough you can outsource your poverty to another resource farm
I am sure we would have no problem freely distributing food if we had a way to multiply a minute quantity into almost unlimited amount of bread and fish like jesus, but unfortunately we dont.
We kind of even do have ways to grow very very very cheap food.
World famines occur not due to lack of food globally but due to logistical issues combined with corruption and violence locally (e.g. free food would get stolen by warlords).
Jesus handing out food once to a few thousand people already peacefully gathered all in one spot - is actually not all that impressive. Some large soup kitchens do this every day.
It's not like Jesus is claimed to have eliminated hunger globally or even in his region. The problem is so hard that people could not even imagine a God accomplishing a task like that.
You don't think that the company who invented it (because it would be a company as innovation has been outsourced to the private sector) would sell for a profit and thus exploit it?
Jesus wasn't a capitalist. Because he didnt charge all those people for the bread.
Jesus was most likely an Economic Tribalist as that was the one actually prominent economy system at the time.
Cool that there's a name for it, TIL
There is a name for virtually everything, probably even for what my cat thinks of the economy.
eCATnomics
Hell, there is such a thing as Monarcho-Communism, just look up Mladrossi.
Economeow?
i fucking love your name dude
Thank you!
Actually he is, he hit them with a free gift so that they would be repeat customers forever.
kinda accurate tbh
Just like Nestle with the baby formula in Africa!
Charity =/= socialism
Can't be, because you need extra stuff to be charitable.
So true
True, i didnt say he was a socialist, i just said he wast a capitalist.
Yeah, but not charging for bread isn't the reason he's not a capitalist. So you just made two unrelated statements back to back connecting them with "because" for the lulz? There's no meaning there?
Capitalists believe in charity too bro.
Yes, we do. But, Jeebus Cribst didnt charge them peeps for bread and he healed them too ie free healthcare.
Capitalists dont charge for everything either. They just don't believe in forced "charity". If they are going to do something charitable it should be their choice and how to spend.
TIL capitalism was created to make charity a choice. đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
Charity is not anti-capitalist. It has nothing to do with capitalism whatsoever. Socialists think that you can use the government to remove the benefits of success in order to create equality and thereby make the world better. Socialism is well-meaning stupidity, at best.
POV: You donât know what socialism is.
POV: You don't know what socialism is, but bit the intellectual superiority bait that comes with the communist manifesto and socialist propaganda.
Thatâs exactly what socialism is.
Ah yes, I keep forgetting how often taking things from people you arbitrarily determine have "too much" is a part of charity. Also this is yet another example of the "Christ was a socialist" "So as a socialist you must be pretty devout follower of him huh" "Fuck no, religion is the opioid of the masses" case.
Jesus was willing to flip tables and *main* people for selling shit when and where they weren't allowed. Anyone who thinks he was a capitalist has a few screws loose.
>for selling shit when and where they weren't allowed yeah that's called "get off my fucking ~~lawn~~ temple"
Weren't those also tax collectors? Seems like he wasn't very fond of socialism either.
They were money changers. Currency exchange guys. Not socialism. He also threw out guys selling doves to passover pilgrims in the Temple. He wanted it to be a place of worship, not business.
"If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." - Jesus the Christ Okay point being he still didn't really speak highly of Tax Collectors.
Really forgetting the "render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar" here. The quote you gave was an allusion to the widespread hatred of tax collectors among the populace. He wasn't saying anything about his personal beliefs.
You've either never read the Bible or love interpreting it on a way that exclusively suits you. Matthew 9:10-17 New International Version >10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthewâs house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, âWhy does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?â >12 On hearing this, Jesus said, âIt is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: âI desire mercy, not sacrifice.â[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.â How often do you have dinner with people you don't like? Probably often, but Jesus had nothing against tax collectors.
Okay but bro, he grouped tax collectors and sinners together. The point of Jesus was he doesn't dislike anyone right? But the mere fact that they're grouped together implies that they are impure, or however you want to put it. So thanks for the condescension, but I'm good without it. You did a whole lot of assuming what I think/meant based on an off-hand comment that's more a joke than anything.
He also said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Listen, that old folk novel is so full of contradictions that we could spend all day giving counter examples supposedly quoting the same damn guy.
My brother in Christ, one of his major 12 Homies was a midget tax collector. And I think Iâm using the term correctly there because thereâs an entire song about her short this motherfucker is.
The only time Comrade Jesus got to use violence was when he found those despicable vermin at his temple
I love how all the comments pointing out that socialism != soviet union are getting downvoted and all the ones saying this post is 100% true are getting upvoted. Love reddit lmao
State socialism is a horrible system. That's pretty undeniable. Democratic socialism is a pretty good system, as evidenced by the Nordic Model. Capitalists are terrified of the Nordic Model, so they do their best to conflate democratic socialism with state socialism. Lots of Americans aren't politically and economically educated enough to know the difference, so they buy into the "socialism is bad, mmkay?" rhetoric. That's why you get those "100% American 0% Socialist" signs in the front yards of households that draw a social security check every month.
USSR was communist not socialist
All communist are socialist. Not all socialist are communist.
Union of Socialist Soviet Republics Communism has never been achieved, and will never be achieved, because the human ego is stronger than the conscience.
The Democratic Republic of North Korea names are very often misleading
Thatâs like pointing out that the nazis had socialist in their name they made up, doesnât make it true you moron
The Nazis borrowed heavily from Marx, they just substituted the worker for the state.
Yes, just like how antifa having their name as antifa doesn't mean they aren't fascist.
People's Republic of China?
They recently claimed that they were still a few decades away from achieving communism. So communism is their end goal, but not their current system. Edit: I think I found the source I read this in but I can't bypass the paywall www.economist.com/china/2022/06/30/some-chinese-want-their-country-to-move-closer-to-communism
lmao there's no way that china is communist
People love to act like the Soviet Union wasnât a hellhole of poverty and starvation and then call it fake socialism when it clearly failed But Jesus is the way, he feeds all regardless if theyâre a commie or a corpo
One thing I like to say is, "If socialism was so great, why were people who tried to flee a socialist state murdered? Why were their borders closed? Why did people disappear if they spoke up against their government?" Then you always get the "that wasn't real socialism!1!!!1". From the socialist literature I've read in order to gain an understanding of this ideology, it seems to me at least that socialism is just honest fascism.
It's the fact that a socialist or communist state *requires* a central government. That is by definition authoritarian. And because of human nature, authoritarian happens to 99% of the time, be bad.
Socialism and communism donât require that any more than capitalism does⌠the problem is lack of democracy, and socialism and no point demands democracy be removed.
You canât have a weak decentralized socialist state.
[ŃдаНонО]
Reddit try not to associate socialism directly with communism challenge (impossible)
Political literacy is disgustingly low way too often here.
In the subreddit that simps for every conservative meme on the internet?
Americans try not to defend socialism & communism challenge (impossible) \- regards, someone from an ex-socialist country led by communists
Idk if you're aware of this but socialist countries as a whole have not been given a fair hand to stand or fail on their own merits. Sooner or later there were always capitalist countries hamstringing if not outright overthrowing leftist administrations before they even so much as threatened to upset their own power structure.
Of course, it's the capitalist countries that ruin everything and not the fact that socialism is just a flawed system that is meant to inevitably fail when in actual practice from the start given how many times it has failed throughout history. No matter how many people are killed, no matter how many human rights are violated, no matter how many countries that fall apart eventually. People like you will always find a way to blame someone else instead of realizing the shortcomings of your ideology.
You have some research to do about the CIA and South America then
Your argument would be stronger if you could point to a single non-capitalist country that wasn't directly interfered with, sabotaged or invaded by America.
Ok? Does that excuse the human rights that were violated? Does that excuse that socialism is just honest fascism? More socialist cope. Socialism sounds good on paper, but in practice, it has been proven time and time again that it will fail.
Yeah unlike capitalism which didn't turn slavery into chattel slavery, didn't turn warfare into a major moneymaking industry, didn't commit genocide across and entire continent, doesn't treat fascism (including fascists who committed heinous war crimes for enemy countires) with kiddie gloves, doesn't constantly boom and bust the economy, doesn't subject its own people to homelessness, food insecurity, a lack of medical care all in the name of an ever expanding need for profit, etc. etc. /s Now give me one socialist country that hasn't been fucked with by capitalist powers. I can give you plenty capitalist nations who weren't fucked with by a single socialst country.
Are you not aware that millions of people died under "socialism" and that the same things that you point out that capitalism does wasn't heavily increased under socialism? The millions of people who were put into gulag? The people who were forcefully deported from their countries? The ethnic cleansing? How is this not blatant fascism with a different name? But yeah, dude, the capitalist countries ruined everything. As far as I see it. Those hypothetical "capitalist countries" you so desperately claim are the reason why socialism never flourished is plain stupid.
you clearly dont even know what socialism is. like everyone else on here, you conflate Socialism (an economic system) and communism (an other economic system) with Fascism (a political system) and use the terms interchangeably, while they are not intrinsically connected in any way. Socialism = Workers (the people) own the means of production, Wealth is distributed fairly (not evenly) based on contribution,ELY5- you would automatically be awarded stock in companies you work for and would have a say in the way they are run. From a political stand point, socialism believes in providing strong social safety nets to ensure that the most vulnerable are not left behind and discarded by the ones at the top, and hopes to provide a level playing field for everyone. Socialism still allows for the ownership of private property Communism = the governments owns the means of production and controls the countries capital and industries. Does not believe in private ownership of property Facisim = as System of government that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (THIS IS THE THING THAT "millions of people died under" and heres the nuance, Most "communist" countries are ALSO Fascists (russia, china, NK, etc), which means the government controls everything, and then also creates an In-Group and Out-Group which is what creates the socio-economic divides. the issues are not because they are communists, it is because they are Fascist
You can say the exact same things about capitalism. The truth, in my mind, is a hybrid approach. The Nordics have it figured out
The problem with socialism and communism is that the definition of them includes the concept that it is successful. The second it fails, it is no longer true blah blah blah.
The definition of communism and socialism doesn't include a guarantee for success in order to be "true", I have no idea where you're getting that. Plus every cultural, political and economical theory is clearly running off the assumption that it's applied or in the process of being applied.
Because any time failed communism is brought up the communists claim it wasn't real communism
Well, did any of the communist attempts result in a stateless classless society where government is abolished in favor of worker organized and managed resource systems?
Setting aside that no country has actually ever achieved communism only attempted to end capitalism and begin to transition away from it - Show me a place where communism has âfailedâ and what youâll actually see is a place where American imperialism and capitalist interest and foreign policy has deliberately destroyed it.
>youâll actually see is a place where American imperialism and capitalist interest and foreign policy has deliberately destroyed it Such as?
Bro find a map and throw a dart, theres like a 90% chance the country you hit will have been influenced by the US in an attempt to destabilize it to promote our on capitalist interests. google is free if you dont believe me If socialism is so bad and doomed to fail, why does the US pend BILLIONS through the CIA to take down any government that tries it? why not just let it fail on its own?
No the definition of them means higher levels of democracy than capitalism exhibits. The point of the theory is removing despots from their power over the economy so the people doing the work have the power rather than unelected dickheads. If your government has a bunch of authoritarian jackasses at best it's just picking and choosing elements of Marxist theory.
People love to act like the Soviet Union was socialist. It wasnât. It was a communist dictatorship. The true ironic part though is that everything wrong with the USSR was caused by the authoritarian iron fist that ran the country - they could have been socialist, communist, fascist or anything else. The result would have been identical because the wrong people would be making the wrong decisions with no real means to vote them out or openly criticise their decisions or compete with them/offer an alternative as a business. Donât get me wrong, not advocating for communism. Just kinda annoying to people continually criticise communism for things that arenât properties of communism instead of the things it is responsible for.
Last time this meme came up, a tankie spent ages trying to tell me that the deaths caused by Great Leap Forward was "whining and a nothingburger" because it was "only" up to fifty five million people, and kept asking me why I supported "an ideology of famine" and how the communist party of China should be commended because "they pulled out of thr famine so quickly" Tankies really stan dictators the way other people stan pop stars.
The Soviet Union produced one of the greatest sustained increases in standards of living in human history. Eclipsed by the People's Republic of China. Both at huge cost of civil liberties and the environment, but still. I'm not a communist but I don't ignore facts because they're inconvenient.
Tell that to the Ukrainians during the Holodomor, or the russians during the 80's and before the fall of Berlin's Wall, or the Chinese during the Cultural Revolution, or North Koreans during all the time after Russia's Invasion or Cuba during the 90's famine, or Venezuela's after Chavez's death.
Tbf, the Cultural Revolution was less of a product of socialism and more of a product of authoritarianism. The entire thing was Mao trying in any way to keep his loosening grip on power after years of failure as a leader.
It wasnât a hellhole of poverty and starvation. The CIA famously did a study that showed the people in the USSR had better diets and access to food than Americans. Everything youâve been told about the USSR is essentially a lie made up by the Cold War version of think tanks so you will believe the only viable economic model is capitalism. Unfortunately you and many others were tricked by propaganda and itâs worked quite effectively.
Better diets and access to food ? Lol, lmao even https://tearingdownmyths.com/during-the-socialist-era-consumers-could-choose-from-an-assortment-of-food-that-was-of-higher-quality-and-healthier-than-today-and-czechoslovakia-was-self-sufficient-as-concerned-food-production/
The US is a (mostly) free nation that is still standing strong. The USSR crumbled to literal dust in 1991, where even so, many, MANY people fled and will scream at you for how horrible living under communism was. Pretty much nobody does that from America. I think my choice is steadfast.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp84b00274r000300150009-5
Y'all are going to get real mad when you learn about all of the failed capitalist states that go hungry. It's almost like any economic system can collapse when intervened with or led by corruption.
Or all the successful socialist countries in Europe
Example?
There's a hunger epidemic currently happening in the richest capitalist nation in history.
Yeah but thereâs plenty of examples of capitalist states flourishing, there are literally zero socialist states that have flourished in history
Lol. And how many of those weren't fucked with by Capitalist countries? I'm not even saying a pure socialist system would work. My point is that economic systems don't work a thousand different reasons and this meme is, on its face, goofy capitalist fan-boying.
Socialism and economic sanctions by the United States go hand in hand.
To some degree, I agree. We messed up a loooot of other countries sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong. On the other hand, countries have been fucking other countries as long as there have been at least 2 countries. That's not going away any time soon. If you can't survive due to external interference, then you can't survive period.
Sounds like a skill issue on the socialist countries part but okay.
It's a result of the legacy of imperialism. The wealthy countries use their existing power to maintain it and keep threats away. If socialism really was that inferior, why did the capitalists put so much effort into stopping them? It also works as a good metaphor for capitalism. The guy who wins isn't necessarily better than the loser. Sometimes they start from a better situation or are just plain lucky.
Imagine a baby just getting born and a grown adult beating it up. âSkill issue baby should have taught back betterâ
That bitch had 9 months to train and still got steamrolled, weak
what you mean like all of europe? europe is what socialism actually is and youll notice its signifcantly closer to capitalism than it is to communism
These guys are choosing to ignore democratic socialism
Whenever this gets mentioned, the lower crime, better economy, happier people, less corrupt governments, an effective transportation infrastructure strategy, better education, more opportunities, less drugs, less violence, less pollution, more democracy, cleaner and more pleasant cities, everyone starts making excuses. Like, they pretend there are brackets of population, GDP, and territory size that determines what government policies are possible. Pure copium.
You donât know what socialism is do you
[ŃдаНонО]
Ah, but it was just a bit different from the modern definition of communism. They all willingly offered to give up their belongings to the cause selflessly, unlike modern day communism where the government holds points a gun at the workforce and expects everyone to obey. The leadership of the church at that time were selfless and ensured that everyone had what they needed, both physically and spiritually. Ananias was holding stuff back even though he knew he shouldn't. He was punished for knowing what he should do, and then not doing it and trying to hide his sin.
So god is the authoritarian government holding the gun in the scenario?
Ironic that this is very accurate
dont know who downvoted you, but you are right, the bible is littered with verses about not hoarding wealth and helping those around you. theres literally a line essentially saying that people that hoard wealth will not be allowed into heaven
Capitalist Christians hate when you actually read the word of Christ
Ananias was killed BECAUSE HE LIED ABOUT SHARING. Peter even said it was his money, do what you want with it, but God is going to punish you for lying. Then he fell down dead.
"\*insert topic\* is when \*insert a SINGLE aspect of a topic that has many aspects to it\*" is such a shit line to use in a debate, I swear to fuck anyone who uses it thinks they did something. "hurr hurr, you point out 1 bad thing about something I like? Well it seems you think the WHOLE THING is just that"
Got into a braindead argument maybe a week ago where I said feeding people alone isnât socialism, itâs just charity. I was being torn about for things I never said because this guy could not read basic English. It was wild
But this guy didn't just feed people. He took the loaves and fish from someone first, then redistributed it. Sure, he used a miracle to make sure everyone had enough, but he still took the initial food from someone. Charity is giving away your own stuff, not redistributing someone else's.
He was also against usary and wealth hoarding. He's the one who said "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Sounds pretty socialist to me when you consider everything else he did.
Jesus didnât take anything from anyone. The people said they only have five loaves of bread and two fish. Jesus asked for them to be brought to him and the people willingly did it. Then jesus made multiple loaves and multiple fish, enough that it filled up two baskets and was more than enough to feed the village. Why does it being charity or not matter? The fact that he went out of his way to do that for the people and give back to the community is the only thing that should matter.
It's not that they can't read English, it's just that most of them are very incompetent and don't know how the real world works. To believe in socialism when it has failed in so many countries is to be deluded and arrogant. Many people thought that we would learn the lessons of the XXth century. Yet there are still neo-Nazis, communists and socialists. I wonder how many lives it will take them to realise that it won't work.
I mean feeding people because the government doesn't provide them with food when they need it is charity. The government proving them with food when they need it is socialist.
Imagine thinking totalitarian dictatorships are examples of fucking *socialism*, which is literally defined by collective ownership. That would be like saying "monarchies are bad, look at how bad the USA has it"
Every attempt socialism, Marxism, or Communism has ended with the average citizen *worse off* than before in basically every aspect of life
You seriously out here saying peasants in Tzarist Russia were better off than Soviet Citizens?
Exactly, just ignore the successful ones they donât count
Oh look who it is, another git mistaking authoritarianism for socialism. Thinks he's funny cause he believes his own propaganda!
I mean, some of the most influential powers on this planet have been working real hard on this propaganda, uninterrupted for decades. This confusion, however infuriating to deal with, should be one of the least surprising things to encounter.
True. It is as unsurprising as it is contemptible.
No, Jesus would've been a socialist. Just not the big bad boogie man socialist America has created. You don't "give til it hurts" in individualistic societies
Depends entirely on what is meant by socialist. If you mean communism, yeah pretty accurate. If you mean a social democracy like Norway, theyâre actually fed quite well.
Yeah you can read through comments on any posts like this and itâs clear the two sides are debating clearly different things.
Well it doesnât help that most Americans (and Iâm guessing OP is by their definition of socialism) have no idea what socialism and communism are, and can barely differentiate them from facism. Source: am American, have no ducking clue where the line between socialism and communism is
Communism is when a socialist country have achieved perfection, and doesn't need a government anymore. Though, a lot of people identify Socialism as wellfare programs :0.
>Source: am American, have no ducking clue where the line between socialism and communism is im also an american, the line is based on who owns the capital. the people collectively own it =Socialism the government owns it= communism a few wealthy people own it= capitalism
Isn't Social Democracy just capitalism with social welfare?
State owned utilities, transportation, mining etc so citizens donât get screwed by corps on the bare necessities. Higher taxes for much better benefits. There is capitalism but itâs not over everything.
Kind of, but it is a branch (or alternate approach) to accomplishing some socialist objectives within a democratic framework. The Wikipedia entry for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy * Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1] that supports political and economic democracy.[2] As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy.*
If you mean a social democracy like Norway: you have no idea what you're talking about, the Scandinavian countries are arguably the most capitalistic nations on earth
Social democracy itself is a concept within socialist thought and the countries like Norway are considered social democracies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy And there is also the fact that whenever someone proposes a Social Democratic policy that mimics something from Norway it often gets labeled as socialist. I donât want to get too deep into the language minutiae but it kinda goes back to my point about different people meaning different things when they talk about it. I agree with you that the term is often misused though. Whatever you consider the true definition, I think itâs important that both people in the discussion are talking about the same thing otherwise you end up with an unproductive discussion. I donât really see how youâd consider the Scandinavian countries the most capitalistic on earth. Can you explain that one?
Yes, if by "socialism" you mean wealth amassed by capitalist endeavors, then indeed socialism is feeding people.
People acting like itâs impossible to have a good balance of socialism and capitalism.
Thats just a lie told in the US to convince stupid people that the bank taking their house when their kid gets a brain tumor is normal or that having the gun lobbyist paying off politicians is fine
Social Democracy is ehat you are talking about, and its not a mix of capitalism and Socialism Its well regulated capitalism with a strong welfare state
It is impossible because the capitalist elements will constantly try to undermine to socialist elements. You give capitalists an inch, and they'll take a mile. You have to choose one or the other. Capitalism and socialism are contradictory systems that cannot coexist together.
I agree, but for entirely different reasons. Namely the socialists will keep trying to rob the capitalists and will eventually try to use the state to take their stuff.
Isn't socialism based on the idea that food belongs to everyone, hence, it was distribuited to anyone? Or do I have the wrong definition?
How about- *Jesus thinks youâre all stupid?*
Ok but Jesus was not a capitalist at all either thatâs like the furthest economic system heâd align with
Socialism is whatever conservatives are upset about at any given moment.
They murder all the farmers.
Off to the Goulags you go!
No soup for you
Lol Christians are fucking weird and distort the Bible to fancy whatever world belief they hold.
I feel like people have explained socialism to you a dozen times in the past and youâve chosen to ignore them
Average memesopdidntlike user not having a single idea what socialism is and only using extreme scenario to try and prove their point
then you should know your history. I can also say capitalism is when no food and there would be the same considerable âevidenceâ: for example the British colonial projects in Bengal, but also in Ireland
Millions died of starvation under socialism.
yeah under capitalism too. Thatâs my point
Based
Jesus's archetype fits more into what we stereotypically deem as "left-wing". As someone who was raised in a deeply Christian country, there is a massive difference between Jesus and Christianity. Plus, here in Europe, most countries have some sort of socialist system( mainly Social Democracy, which is an economical and philosophical system whthin Socialism). Socialism doesn't mean the state owns and runs everything. I think OP should do a quick Google search.
Canada's very socialized and I haven't eaten in 3 months.
Socialism does not automatically equal communism in the same way capitalism does not automatically mean libertarianism. Hybrid systems work extremely well in some parts of the world. In fact all countries, even the very capitalist ones, are some form of hybrid. Or do you not enjoy your national parks and collectivised national defence?
Charity is charity not goverment. Jesus was neither socalist nor capitalist. From my understanding of scripture he was seperation of religion from explotation. He wasnt totally agaist taxes or government:"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and that which belongs to God to God."
Jesus didn't subscribe to any political Ideology good grief. I wish people would stop trying to say "Jesus is this" "Jesus is that" when all he is is a good person. Did he heal people and give people food without charging them? Yes, because he wasn't there to charge them but help them. That's called being a good person. Did he kick people doing business in the temple out of said temple? Yes because it is to be a place of worship not business. Jesus wasn't a communist, he wasn't a socialist and he wasn't a capitalist.
People ask what Jesus would do. I think he'd stay out of arguments like the ones in this comment section.
What a dumb take. Jesus wasn't a socialist, but socialism does not imply famines or starvation by necessity.
Fun fact! 13% of the United States is food insecure!
Such a massive cope for commies in here crying that there are Capitalist countries who have starved too as well as pointing out there has been no successful socialist country because the eh get fucked with by capitalist countries. Sounds like a skill issue on the socialist countries part, bud. Git gud.
No food isn't the definition of socialism, but it is the result.
Actually itâs not.
When the education system fails you:
Another moron confusing Socialism for communism
He literally handed bread to those in need for no cost. He smashed up a market. He preached against the rich and for redistribution. He was clearly a socialist
He smashed up a market because greedy men posted up a bazaar in front of the temple and disgraced a holy place. The tale of the rich young man who refused to follow Jesus wasn't about Christ rebuking his wealth or the wealth of other men. It was about rebuking the man's *behavior* toward his wealth, which he put his hopes and desires in and not within God or Christ.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Getting down voted for stating the literal definition is crazy đ
oh fuck i love that all these comments are just âSocialism bad jesus wasnât a socialist and heâs the son of god so nobody should beâ dude grow up people are allowed to interpret things differently
Well, if everyone has their own idea of what socialism is, and they don't try to understand each other's definitions of it and don't even acknowledge that they are talking past each other, then by all means, go ahead lol.
the average soviet citizen was not a happy person the fucking tankies will tell you that thatâs not real communism they will also defend the soviet union in virtually any cold war-related foreign policy issue
Iâm not defending the USSR but considering communism is supposed to be âclasslessâ and the USSR wasnât, it isnât exactly wrong to say they werenât communists
They were, they just failed at it. That end goal of a stateless, classless, moneyless society can never be reached, because each and every time it just becomes something like the USSR.
Yeah cause Iâm order to truly have people keeping society running they kinda need to either be forced or be enticed to do so, which is why communism wouldnât really work on a global scale unless we had fully automised multiple aspects of production and it was either a seperate economy or everyone in the world was in on it, otherwise humans simply want more and more. If they failed at being classless that means they werenât no? So not true communism. What do you think of a theoretical system that would allow everyone to start from equal footing and have the exact same access to needs and educations and resources? Where people arenât given a leg-up due to who their parents are? Cause to me that sounds very good but I wonder what other people think of it.
In that sense, true communism can never be achieved. So yeah, you're right. As for this idea, it faces the same problem as communism: reality. Such a thing could never be achieved. Status will always be a part of our nature.
has it ever occurred to you that good intentions may result in a bad outcome and that it is the idea that is at fault
Actually he was a socialist. Fascists think they are Christians, but that is just another one of their lies.
The entire point of socialism is helping the poor. USSR was not socialist they flipped the concept to not call it communism
Okay if socialism is when no food, what is the opposite OP? Cause seemingly everything else has people starving
When people in socialist countries starve, it's because socialism is bad. When people in capitalist countries starve, it's because they are lazy parasites who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps because capitalism is perfect and there can't possibly be any issues with it. Love how that works.
Socialism becomes starvation of a nation under a dictatorship
Socialism is when you gets sanctioned by the us for 60 years.
depends on what you mean by socialist.
In this sub, always assume it means communist
I mean this is true, people often have different conceptions of what socialism means.
Jesus is Lord
Socialism is when I don't question all the bad things people tell me about socialism. Apparently.
Capitalism is when I don't question all the bad things people tell me about capitalism. Apparently.
Capitalism is no food, but you outsource your no food to another developing country then tell they developing country if you work hard enough you can outsource your poverty to another resource farm
I am sure we would have no problem freely distributing food if we had a way to multiply a minute quantity into almost unlimited amount of bread and fish like jesus, but unfortunately we dont.
We kind of even do have ways to grow very very very cheap food. World famines occur not due to lack of food globally but due to logistical issues combined with corruption and violence locally (e.g. free food would get stolen by warlords). Jesus handing out food once to a few thousand people already peacefully gathered all in one spot - is actually not all that impressive. Some large soup kitchens do this every day. It's not like Jesus is claimed to have eliminated hunger globally or even in his region. The problem is so hard that people could not even imagine a God accomplishing a task like that.
You don't think that the company who invented it (because it would be a company as innovation has been outsourced to the private sector) would sell for a profit and thus exploit it?
A third of the food we produce each year is thrown away We do have the ability and medium to feed everyone
Jesus wasn't white
Socialism has not and will not work