Marxism's Three Primary Principles

I forgot the exact time I decided to postpone my reading of Ludwig von Mises' "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis". After watching a youtube video that the leading presidential candidate was a self-confessed socialist and after stumbling with few Facebook status updates advocating socialism, they motivated me to delay no longer my reading of  Mises' book.

Digesting Mises' book on socialism is vital to have an informed understanding of the conflict between socialism and capitalism. I don't want to follow the example of what Mises describes as "irresponsible babbler" who publicly talks and writes a lot about capitalism and socialism without familiarizing himself with what the economists have to say about these issues (Ludwig von Mises, "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality," 2008, p. 47). 

Mises' book on socialism has a credible reputation to have refuted the socialist paradise. The author argued that the central weakness inherent in socialism is  the impossibility to have a sound economic calculation and planning due to the absence of price system. As such, socialism will inevitably lead to waste of resources and poverty.   

Returning to my reading of this book, my goal was to finish it, digest its content and write my summary and reflection of it. In achieving this goal, I want to bite the 600-page book one small piece at a time. And so I want to post a series of excerpts, which I think will show the flow of thought proving the central argument of the book. And I would like to start with the "Preface to the Second German Edition" identifying the three primary principles of Marxism: 

"Thus about the middle of the nineteenth century, it seemed that the ideal of socialism had been disposed of. Science had demonstrated its worthlessness by means of strict logic and its supporters were unable to produce a single effective counter-argument. 

"It was at this moment that Marx appeared. Adept as he was in the Hegelian dialectic - a system easy of abuse by those who seek to dominate thought by arbitrary flights of fancy and metaphysical verbosity - he was not slow in finding a way out of the dilemma in which socialists found themselves. Since Science and Logic had argued against Socialism, it was imperative to devise a system which could be relied on to defend it against such unpalatable criticism. This was the task which Marxism undertook to perform. It had THREE LINES OF PROCEDURE.  

• First, it denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an 'ideological superstructure' of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was 'revealed' as 'bourgeois' reasoning, an apology for capitalism.

• Secondly, it laid it down that the dialectical development led of necessity to Socialism; that the aim and end of all history was the socialization of the means of production by the expropriation of the expropriators - the negation of negation.

• Finally, it was ruled that no one should be allowed to put forward, as the Utopians had done, any definite proposals for the construction of the Socialist Promised Land. Since the coming of socialism was inevitable, Science would best renounce all attempt to determine its nature."

Source: Ludwig von Mises, "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis," 1951, pp. 15-16. 

Legal Plunder and Its Numerous Names

Legal plunder is the use of the law to take the property of others and give it to another. Legal plunder is the political climate of the day. This is done in the name of egalitarian justice. Progressive taxation is its favorite strategy. Special interest groups are happy with such a system for they take advantage of taxes at the expense of other classes. For Frederic Bastiat, this system of legal plunder "is not merely an iniquity it is a fertile source of iniquities", and if it is not abolished, it "will extend, multiply, and become systematic" (The Law, p. 14). 

Legal plunder has been going on for so long. Bastiat saw it done in France in 1850. His message remains relevant in the 21st century. Bastiat identifies the numerous names of legal plunder: 

". . . . tariffs, protection, perquisites, gratuities, encouragements, progressive taxation, free public education, right to work, right to profit, right to wages, right to assistance, right to instruments of labor, gratuity of credit, etc., etc."

Taking all these these names as a whole and you will see that it is socialism that is at work. The essence of socialism is legal plunder. 

An Inquiry from a facebook friend

Photo Credit

A facebook friend posted on my wall an inquiry related to an article criticizing Hacienda Luisita, the Cojuangcos, and capitalism. The writer appeals to the Bible as his basis, particularly the story of Naboth's vineyard and a passage from James. And after presenting his argument with a mixture of his own style of biblical interpretation, a piece of Philippine history, and a superficial knowledge of economics, he made this conclusion: 

As I said earlier that capitalism has already defined, institutionalized and operationalized on how to kill, steal and destroy people's lives not only of Filipinos but world-wide and what we want to see is how the believers will also provide alternative by defining, institutionalizing and operationalizing the statement of Jesus that He came to give life full of abundance here on earth (Jn 10:10).

Here is the whole piece: 

FROM IDEA TO REALITY

Transforming and translating love and cooperation into institutional policies and social system.

WHAT laws and policies to be legislated that will concretize love and cooperation?

WHAT actions and practices to be done that will demonstrate love and cooperation?

Theologians, philosophers and intellectuals have been giving us bulky of ideas but what we are looking for is the operationalization and realization of those ideas- the transformation from idea (spirit) into reality (matter).

Jesus said that the devil came to kill, steal and destroy people's lives (Jn 10:10). Was Jesus speaking of a literal devil, going around and doing all these mass destruction against humanity?

To take away our mystical belief of a devil that is responsible in stealing and destroying people's life, we will provide some concrete examples that will reveal the real devil in the system. Let us use the Biblical account as our example:

Naboth's Vineyard

Omri came to power 125 years after David's accession, and his line came to an end just 50 years later with the execution of his daughter, Athaliah, who was queen in Jerusalem. But the "LAWS" which Omri introduced and which his son Ahab and daughter-in-law Jezebel enforced continued to contradict with the law of the Lord until finally the law of the Lord was almost forgotten and Israel was wiped out as a nation. Micah, the eighth century prophet, speaking shortly before the fall of Samaria, when the Southern Kingdom, Judah, was also deeply dyed with the land lust of the Phoenicians, said, (Mic. 6.16) "For the statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab, and ye walk in their counsels; that I should make thee a desolation..." This is elaborated in 2.2; "They covet fields and take them by violence: and houses and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage." This describes Ahab. The episode of Naboth's Vineyard is the central fact given for Ahab's reign, and the specific reason given by the prophet (I Kg 21.19) for the destruction of the entire dynasty of Omri. It involves Ahab's greed for land and Jezebel's application of Phoenician (Baalistic) law to Israel. Ahab wanted to buy or exchange Naboth's vineyard, but Naboth pointed out that, under the law of the Lord he was forbidden to alienate the heritage of his clan. Ahab, still an Israelite at heart and half a believer in the Lord, hesitated to act. Under the Phoenician system, however, this was a ridiculous position and, moreover, Naboth's refusal to accede to the King's reasonable request (under the Baal system) was lése majesté. Jezebel said to Ahab: "Aren't you the king of Israel? I will get it for you myself," and proceeded to have Naboth condemned in a public trial for blasphemy against God and the king. Certainly, it was blasphemy against Baal to assert rights or duties given by the Lord (Yahweh), and it was blasphemy against the king to assert that he was not free to enforce the Phoenician system which treats land as a commodity and not as a heritage.

Navoth's vineyard and hacienda Luisita

Hacienda Luisita: A land that is rightfully to the Filipino farmers

"Landlords’ right has its origin in robbery. The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for the natural produce of the earth" (Adam Smith, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 44.)

This is Hacienda Luisita’s history

Before we were colonized by Spain, lands in our country were owned by the Filipno people and in fact, there was no law that gave right to anyone to privately own the land. There was also no law that allow the selling of land. The land was communally owned by all Filipinos but when the colonizer came, they took the land by force and put it under their own control and name. One concrete example is the Hacienda Luisita. Tabacalera Spanish company wanted to sell the Azucarera in Tarlac due to Hukbalahap rebellion. One of the motivating reasons why there was rebellion is the issue of landgrabbing. The 200 revolts launched by Filiponos during Spaniah occupation were all connected to the issue of land. The powerful Lopez family wanted to buy it but Ramon Magsaysay offered the sale of Azucarera to Cory’s father alone. The Philippine government agreed to loan Aquino-Cojuangco the dollars to purchase Azucarera, but with 2 important conditions. Here is the first condition; along with the Azucarera sugar mill, Cojuangco’s must also purchase the surrounding farmlands known as Hacienda Luisita. The second condition is after 10 years, the 6,400 Hacienda Luisita must be distributed to its small farmers. Hacienda Luisita is just one of the Cojuangco’s wealth.

In 1968, ten years after purchasing Hacienda Luisita, no land was made available to any tenant, farmer or sugar planter. Hacienda Luisita workers formed a union asking for land distribution and still no land was distributed. In 1980, after eleven years of follow-ups by the Marcos government, still no land was distributed. The Marcos government filed case versus Aquino-Cojuangcos but Cory junked the case when she became the president.

In January 1987, the Mendiola Massacre happened. Cory’s government forces opened fire. 13 farmers were dead and there were 39 gunfire injuries. Another was in February 1987 in Lupao. Cory’s government forces killed 17 farmers. What happened to Hacienda Luisita during Cory’s term? Cory’s new land reform exempted Hacienda Luisita from being distributed. The Cojuangcos have often garnered criticism for their ownership of the estate. It was oligarchy at its finest.

Why must Hacienda Luisita be distributed to its small farmers? In the first place, it is stated in the treaty that the Aquino-Cojuangco must give it up. Second, they deserve a piece of the land they have been working for a long time already. Some of the farmers and their families were born, raised and died on the same land. Almost every family member of each farmer also works for Hacienda Luisita. Third, many farmers had already sacrificed their lives fighting for a land strained against them. They are not asking for every edge of the land but just a piece of it just so they can have at least their own property they can rely on without being scared of what future may bring. They deserve it. On the small farmer’s point of view, Hacienda Luisita is not just a land, thus a way and source of life.

But what is the downside of distributing Hacienda Luisita?

First, it would be unfair for the Aquino-Cojuangcos because the land is legally theirs through the power of papers. They bought it for every centavo worth of the land.

Second, it is also unfair that Supreme Court withdraw the capacity of the Aquino-Cojuangcos to resist Hacienda Luisita on being taken away from them. Their right to property is neglected.

Now what is the downside of distributing it to the farmers?

First, they could sold it right away after receiving it, thus, wasting the main reason itself of gaining the land.

Second, they could just stop working because of the fact that they already own that piece of land.

All in all, it is still in favor to the farmers. With all that, I believe the farmers rightfully deserve Hacienda Luisita. It is with the sad truth that some of the farmers have already sacrificed to fight for the land they had worked in for so long. The fact that there was an agreement that Hacienda Luisita must be distributed 10 years after its purchase is an enough reason. Adding to that, farmers have worked for so long, they have earned the Aquino-Coujuangco millions of money and yet not even a piece of land was given is really unfair. Finally, justice will be given to those who deserve it. Another good news, the President called on the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to make sure that the law requiring just compensation for land owners be obeyed. The hectares of land each of the farmers will get and how much the Cojuangcos will be paid are not yet known today but it will be surely compensated properly.

The shipment of gold commandeered by Gen. Juan Luna and the wealth of family Cojuanco

There was an earlier account recounted by historian Carlos Quirino in an unpublished book commissioned by Danding Cojuangco, about a shipment of gold vessels commandeered by General Antonio Luna from churches in Pampanga, collected for him by Tiburcio Hilario, Pampanga governor, brought to Paniqui and entrusted to Ysidra Cojuanco for safekeeping before Luna left for Cabanatuan to meet Aguinaldo, only to be assassinated there.

The gold was brought by Luna from both the Ilocos (through Saulo) and Central Luzon (through Hilario) to Ysidra Cojuanco. With the First Republic on the run and the Americans inquiring about the gold, Ysidra dumped the gold into a well, retrieved it later and used it to build the Cojuangco fortune.

1987 Constitution, Article 11, section 15, which stipulates: “The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescriptions, laches or estoppel."

Ysidra admitted that Luna was indeed her very close friend, and that Luna left her valuables, not once but regularly on many occasions. When asked how much value was involved, Encarnacion replied that while she is not sure of the exact value, it was certainly in huge quantities since several huge caskets were involved.

Manapat asked her if she knew that there were more than one shipment. She emphatically said yes, the shipments were a regular thing. Not only was Encarnacion a friend and confidant of Dońa Ysidra, she is also the daughter of Eulalio Saulo who confirmed to her the story as one of the military escorts of the gold shipment to Ysidra. This is the first direct evidence of a Cojuangco (and Ysidra at that) admitting what many Luna contemporaries long alleged, that the source of the Cojuangco fortune was the gold commandeered by Luna and regularly turned over to Ysidra.

The combined assets controlled by the Cojuangcos total about P200 billion. To recover such wealth under Article 11, section 15 of the 1987 Constitution, one must go to court, and pay a filing fee of half a percent of the amount to be recovered, or P1 billion unrefundable win or lose. Who has that kind of money to risk? Ric Manapat suggests that the three wealthy branches be sued for P1 each. Once the case is won, then the rest of the P200 billion may be sued for. Or alternatively, Manapat suggests that the PCGG pursue the matter with funds appropriated by Congress, the funds merely transferred from one government pocket to another.

Have we seen the mystical devil stealing the land rightfully belonged to Naboth or we have seen the hand of a person in political power [king] and the laws [system] he made resulting to the take-over of land not rightfully belonging to him? The devil being referred at john 10:10 who is stealing and destroying people's life can be seen in the exploitative and oppresive laws [system].

In the writing of James, he wanted to bring to the realization of believers "social realities. James made a cateigorical statement: "Is it not the rich who are exploiting the poor" [Js.2:6]. James could have not said that if he was not able to see real exploitation. What was the basis of James in making a conclusion that the rich were the ones exploiting the poor people? James saw how the rich people are not paying just wages to their workers and how the rich live in luxury at the expense of their worker's labor (james 5:1-6).

The current world system which is capitalism in the stage of globalization has been following this line through exploitative policies like deregulation, privatization and liberalization.

To explain further the essence of these three elements:

First, the privatization it is the policy wherein the Government Own and Controlled Corporations (GOCC's) where privatized by selling it to the private sector.

Second, the deregulation, meaning the government has to cut its control over the industry for basic commodities, e.g., oil, water, electricity.

Lastly, liberalization, is the policy by which all laws regarding import products were amended or abolished, for example tariff and quota.

Privatization is the process where all government own corporations are privatized, and maintained by the private sector. We cannot denied that when a business is in the hands of private institution it is oriented for profit. These GOCC's are basically State's inherent corporations because their services are for the public consumption like the electricity, water, transportation, telecommunications, and the like. They are essentials for the well being of the State.

This trend of Globalization which is a stage of capitalism threaten this State's natural order. This trend, as push by the G7, paving these economic superpowers to access to the basic industries of a subject country. The truth is members of G7 has all the available resources, for the intervention of certain economy of a subject state. Take for example the Philippines, as said it is the largest producer of geothermal energy in the world, yet one of the highest rate of electricity in the world. This is true because the Philippines' electric industry is on the hands of private company. This is also true to other basic industry.

Second element that is deregulation. To deregulate meaning the government has no legislative intervention over the certain corporation which main industry is for public consumption, as long as the company submitted reason of the their actions.

Best example of this is the Philippine Oil Deregulation Law or Republic Act (R.A.) 8479. Before, oil price is under controlled of the government by means of its quasi-agency, Oil Price Stability Fund (OPSF). This quasi-agency hold the price of oil. Logically the fair market value. It is possible because when the price of oil in the world market is low the OPSF remain its price to the local market as it was brought high, the remaining stocks were sold higher than the world market. The government gained huge profit from this scheme. And when the price of oil in the world market go up the government reimburse it from the profit they gained when it was low. So it's a circle as long as the price of oil is stable and affordable.

But when this G7 introduced the policy of globalization, underdeveloped and developing countries no way to run but suck it, bypassing the negative effects. When the R.A. 8479 and the OPSF were abolished, its pave the private companies to raise the price of oil to their discretion. Today the policy of oil price hike in the local market is determined by the movement of world market, which is obviously under controlled by the G7 and the greedy oil exporting countries. Now it is unstable and skyrocketing.

Lastly, the liberalization meaning to liberalize. This process is done by means of amending or worst abolish the laws regarding restriction or limitation of import products, for example the tariff and quota. When a certain economy is liberalized, product of developed countries basically can enter to the developing and least develop nation. It's obvious that these products are surplus from their market, simply outsource the surplus.

As I said earlier that capitalism has already defined, institutionalized and operationalized on how to kill, steal and destroy people's lives not only of Filipinos but world-wide and what we want to see is how the believers will also provide alternative by defining, institutionalizing and operationalizing the statement of Jesus that He came to give life full of abundance here on earth (Jn 10:10).

The challenge is, what policies, laws and system that will bring about life full of abundance for all humanity?

The alternative to private property (capitalism) is to make the means of production public (lands, factories, industries).

And here is my reply:

1. "WHAT laws and policies to be legislated that will concretize love and cooperation?"

- Let law depart from such goals, and focus on its primary task, to serve justice. Its attempt to include love and cooperation among its ends has already brought enough mischief upon mankind. Doing so, the law's purpose has been diverted from its original intent and has run a course against its nature, and thereby became an instrument of coercion, violence, legal murder, and legal plunder.

2. "But the 'LAWS' which Omri introduced and which his son Ahab and daughter-in-law Jezebel enforced continued to contradict with the law of the Lord until finally the law of the Lord was almost forgotten and Israel was wiped out as a nation."

- The comparison of this story into our time is partly true! Human laws should be based on divine law, but due to the reign of humanism that shapes the mind of the intellectuals in various fields of learning including the legal profession, human laws now contain a mixture of just and unjust laws, which predominance depends on the ruling political party of the day. 

3. "Naboth's vineyard and hacienda Luisita."

The story of Naboth's vineyard is clear. Comparing it to the case of Hacienda Luisita requires extreme caution particularly if we do not have access to an accurate and reliable source of information about the latter. The quote from Adam Smith requires a context for it to be properly understood. Taking the story at face value, if it is really true that there was an agreement that hacienda Luisita must be distributed, then let that agreement be implemented.

4. Concerning gold and General Luna, I heard that story several times. What I worry about the idea of "wealth recovery" is that it will make the State even more powerful. The question is wealth recovery for whom and for what purpose? So that the politicians and bureaucrats would have the resources to waste and steal, and to finance its programs?

5. "The devil being referred at john 10:10 who is stealing and destroying people's life can be seen in the exploitative and oppressive laws [system]."

I agree, and that is why to push back the civil government to its proper role, limiting its size and its fund is a worthy goal for those who want to advance liberty. 

6. "In the writing of James, he wanted to bring to the realization of believers "social realities. James made a categorical statement: 'Is it not the rich who are exploiting the poor' [Js.2:6]. James could have not said that if he was not able to see real exploitation. What was the basis of James in making a conclusion that the rich were the ones exploiting the poor people? James saw how the rich people are not paying just wages to their workers and how the rich live in luxury at the expense of their worker's labor (James 5:1-6)."

This passage in James talks about rich who exploits the poor. It is silent about just rich. So to apply the passage indiscriminately to all rich people is misleading. 

7. "As I said earlier that capitalism has already defined, institutionalized and operationalized on how to kill, steal and destroy people's lives not only of Filipinos but world-wide and what we want to see is how the believers will also provide alternative by defining, institutionalizing and operationalizing the statement of Jesus that He came to give life full of abundance here on earth (Jn 10:10)."

If there is any recommendation I could give to the writer, kindly digest Ludwig von Mises "Socialism: An Economic and Socioligical Analysis", and after digesting it return to his article and assess it. In Part 2 Section 1 Chapter 3 of the book, Mises identified at least 5 forms of socialism, and that excludes other pseudo-socialist systems. Reading the above piece, I came up with a conclusion that the writer does not understand the real nature of socialism, the alternative system that he is proposing. He thinks that the existing economic system is capitalism. This is the natural outcome of being schooled in mainstream education. The man is a victim of statist propaganda, and we understand that. Among the 5 forms of socialist system, the reigning economic system in our time is "planned economy" also known as "State Capitalism", that is the Statist version of capitalism, which in reality is no capitalism at all. Socialists do this in their vain search for an answer to their insoluble problem about economic calculation. Socialism has already been debunked by Mises since the writing of the book and most socialists now do not possess the same courage displayed by Robert Heilbroner, a socialist intellectual who humbly admitted their defeat. Expect that many uninformed socialists will try various proposals to save socialism. For those of us who value liberty, let us heed the warning of Ludwig von Mises:

"In the last few years, a new word has been found for that which was covered by the expression "planned economy': State Capitalism, and no doubt in the future many proposals for the salvaging of Socialism will be brought forward. We shall learn many new names for the same old thing. But the thing, not its names, is what matters, and all schemes of this sort will not alter the nature of Socialism" (p. 258).

Central Planning and Decentralization

"Centralization was the prevailing political structure in the history of the world. Egypt used the people to construct a society, using the energies of the masses to implement the goals of the State, governed by the Pharaohs. The pyramid, the tower, and Nebuchdnezzar's colossus are visible manifestations of centralized political planning. God works to disestablish centralized political regimes. His blueprint for life is decentralization, with the individual working and having freedom in the family, church, business, and civil government. No one man or institution is to rule over all other aspects of society. The way to a just order is not found in anarchy where man is a law unto himself, in socialism where the State owns the means of production, in an oligarchy where a planning elite rules and overrules, or in a democracy where the people can change the direction of a nation by whim and fancy. God has established a decentralized society best described as a Constitutional Republic where the best are elected to office and yet are still responsible to the vote of the people."

Source: Gary DeMar, Ruler of the Nations, 1987, pp. 37-38

Absurdities of Marxian Socialism

The study of socialism is a challenging subject. I encounter in social networks many pastors and theological educators depending it. In fact, if I am not mistaken, socialism is the air that most evangelical pastors and theological educators breath. At least, I can attest to that as far as my experience when I was still taking my doctoral course is concerned. Most of our readings came from the Marxist camp. I never encounter even just one book from classical liberalism. 

And so I decided to return to the basic. I want to understand what socialism is. Of course, I have a bias for the materials that I will be using are written by the classical liberals and economists from the Austrian school. 

Based on my initial writing about socialism and reading of Part 2, Section 3 in Ludwig von Mises' book, "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis," I realized that there are more or less nine or ten forms of socialism. In this article, I want to start with the most popular kind, Marxist socialism. In writing about this topic, I want to share my understanding of three articles, and I just want to start with David Gordon's "Mythologies of Marxism."

David Gordon reviewed G. A. Cohen's "If Youre an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?" In it he shared Cohen's critical assessment of his own belief system. Gordon considered Cohen virtuous in asking tough questions concerning Marxism. Gordon thinks that Cohen's critical assessment of Marxism opens vistas of argument in favor of the free market. 

In his review, Gordon identified two areas of discrepancies between Cohen on the one hand and Marx and Rawls on the other. Cohen first dealt with Marx, and started by comparing Marx and Rawls' concepts of egalitarianism and socialism. The two have different basis for their concepts. Rawls based his concepts on morality while Marx on self-interest. 

Before presenting Cohen's critical assessment of Marx and his own evaluation, Gordon described first Marx's vision of socialism. It is described as the end product in the evolution of capitalism, a system where the proletariat will ultimately replace entrepreneurs that would end exploitation, and usher into economic abundance. This is Marxian socialism's paradise. 

According to Gordon, Cohen identified two errors in this line of thinking. The first one is related to the size of proletariat and the other one is about the unpreparedness of the advocates of socialism after the revolution. 

However, despite the honesty of Cohen, Gordon identified that the former failed to ask question related to the basis for the existence of economic abundance in socialism. In effect, Gordon is aking, "How will the socialists account for their paradise of economic abundance?" Gordon believes that socialists cannot provide an answer to this question due to "calculation argument" ably raised by Mises, that the only logical destiny of socialism is one of chaos.

Gordon even placed socialism in a more intricate situation by saying that to claim increased economic productivity by merely replacing business owners with the proletariat has no logical basis. It is simply an assertion without foundation.

After identifying Marx's absurdity, Gordon proceeded to expose the faulty baseline of Rawlsian concept of equality and justice. For Rawls, basic in his idea of equality is the "equality of resources." Existence of inequality is considered illegitimate except on the basis of "difference principle" where inequality is allowed for the purpose of redistributing the excess income for the benefits of the poor. 

Furthermore, concerning justice, Rawls regarded it as part of "basic structure" in social institutions. This basic structure serves as the boundary where invidual action caused by self-interest remains just. 

Cohen differs on these two points. For him, equality does not need any qualification. He is also not convince with Rawl's concept of justice; it is dualistic to him. 

The difference between the two positions is evident in the way they view the role of families in a society. Gordon shared his understanding of Cohen's assesment of Rawls' position: ". . . . family structures have no implications for justice . . . since they are not a concesquence of the formal coercive order." For Cohen, the society cannot maintain the concept of egalitarian justice since families in society are inherently hierarchical. 

The final question is about dispensing of resources. For Cohen, though he admits that individual action to give away resources cannot end poverty, the existence of rich socialists is a contradiction. A socialist cannot maintain both: keeping his wealth and believing in egalitarian justice. 

Identifying all these absurdities, - size of the proletariat, unpreparedness after the revolution, unaccountability of economic abundance, and maintaining both wealth and egalitarian justice - I now understand why Gordon is confident that Cohen's book works for the advantage of the arguments of the free market. 

What is national socialism? (Part 2)

After sharing the summary of ideas of Ludwig von Mises from "Planned Chaos" about Nazism, it's now time to explore further what the "Omnipotent Government" has to say about the subject. One commenter was not convinced when I shared Mises' quote taken from Planned Chaos that "Nazism is the purest and most consistent manifestation of the anticapitalistic and socialistic spirit of our age." I asked him, "On what basis?" There was no response.

After surveying and rereading the section on "German Nazism" from pages 129-239, I came up with a conclusion that in order to understand national socialism or Nazism, one must also grasp the role played by Pan-Germanism. And not only that, another important task is to comprehend the six basic tenets of national socialism.

Pan-Germanism is the mother of Nazism. It was the application of militant nationalism to the situation of Germany prior to the coming of Hitler into the political scene. The advocates of Pan-Germanism were the "intellectuals and writers. The professors of history, law, economics, political science, geography, and philosophy " (p. 131). Together with "the socialists of the chair in the last thirty years of the nineteenth century", the intellectuals of Pan-Germanism were responsible in the development of the essential ideas of Nazism (p. 147). 

The six basic tenets of Nazism were the following:

1. "Capitalism is an unfair system of exploitation. It injures the immense majority for the benefit of a small minority. Private ownership of the means of production hinders the full utilization of natural resources and of technical improvements. Profits and interest are tributes which the masses are forced to pay to a class of idle parasites. Capitalism is the cause of poverty and must result in war" (p. 222).

2. "It is therefore the foremost duty of popular government to substitute government control of business for the management of capitalists and entrepreneurs" (ibid.).

3. "Price ceilings and minimum wage rates, whether directly enforced by the administration or indirectly by giving a free hand to trade-unions, are an adequate means for improving the lot of the consumers and permanently raising the standard of living of all wage earners. They are steps on the way toward entirely emancipating the masses (by the final establishment of socialism) from the yoke of capital" (ibid.).

4. "Easy money policy, i.e., credit expansion, is a useful method of lightening the burdens imposed by capital upon the masses and making a country more prosperous. It has nothing to do with the periodical recurrence of economic depression. Economic crises are an evil inherent in unhampered capitalism" (ibid.)

5. "All those who deny the foregoing statements and assert that capitalism best serves the masses and that the only effective method of permanently improving the economic conditions of all strata of society is progressive accumulation of new capital are ill-intentioned narrow-minded apologists of the selfish class interests of the exploiters. A return to laissez faire, free trade, the gold standard, and economic freedom is out of the question" (p. 223).

6. "The advantage derived from foreign trade lies exclusively in exporting. Imports are bad and should be prevented as much as possible. The happiest situation in which a nation can find itself is where it need not depend on any imports from abroad" (ibid.).

Because of these ideas, Nazism conquered Germany. Neither social democracy nor communism were able to resist Nazism intellectualy simply because their core concepts were similar. The only difference says Mises is the manner of "application of these ideas to the special problems of Germany" (p. 222). Furthermore, Mises argues that any critic who lacks "the insight to attack these premises is not in a position to find fault with the conclusions drawn from them by the Nazis" (p. 223). 

Concerning those who identify Nazism as a product of capitalism, this is what Mises has to say: 

"The foreign critics condemn the Nazi system as capitalist. In this age of fanatical anticapitalism and enthusiastic support of socialism no reproach seems to discredit a government more thoroughly in the eyes of fashionable opinion than the qualification pro-capitalistic. But this is one charge against the Nazis that is unfounded" (p. 225). 

Socialism - Definitions and Versions

Just recently, I realized that defining socialism is a very challenging task. Last August 22, I started a thread in a Facebook group composed of Filipino pastors, theologians and educators. I asked this question, "Should Reformed and Evangelicals support socialism as an economic system or not? Why?"

Pastors are divided. There are those who advocate Christian socialism. Others would defend the free market. But still others think that a mixture of two systems is possible. 

The Difficulty of Defining Socialism

Someone suggested to define the term first. I searched and came up with the following definitions:

Wikipedia's definition is not easy. However, there are at least two important things to bear in mind. 

First, concerning the conventional definition, "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy." In this definition, we need to further clarify the meaning of "social ownership" and "cooperative management". In continuing the definition given by Wikipedia, it appears that "social ownership" and "cooperative management" are closely connected. And under the umbrella of "social ownership", "cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these" are included. So as for me, this definition is not easy to grasp and if this is what we understand by socialism, no wonder, the question is difficult to answer.

Second, Wikipedia also identified that "varieties' of socialism exist "and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them." And then Wikipedia mentioned about "markets" and "productive institutions" and I think this is the reason why some people believe that under socialism, a free market can exist. Moreover, i consider that the most important insight Wikipedia pointed out is about the "role of the state in constructing socialism". 

After reading this difficult definition, I asked, "Is this really true in practice? Are all forms of socialism similar to Soviet or North Korean models? How about the German version? And how about the kibbutz, the commune and Scandinavia?

A Clearer Definition of Socialism

At Mises Wiki, this is the given definition: "Socialism is the system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; it also refers to the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice." This definition is clear and this is the meaning I would like to adopt in my question above. 

Furthermore, since I think it is related, I would like to include two insights Mises mentioned in his book, "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis." They are about socialism's aim and the seeming existence of the free market under socialism. Mises named this aim as the transfer of " the means of production from private ownership to the ownership of organized society, to the State" (1951, p.56). And regarding the free market, this is how Mises interpreted its existence under socialism:

"If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State" (ibid.).

Some Ideas to Consider for an Extended Definition of Socialism

However, if you are looking for a longer definition of socialism, I think Mises' second lecture in Argentina dated 1959 would help. You can find that lecture in his book, "Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow". Some of the ideas and economic realities evident under socialism are as follows:

• The lost of economic freedom

• Priority of the interest of the State 

• Government ownership of means of production 

• Absence of consumer sovereignty

• The sovereignty of the state over the people

• Use of laws to "protect" (coerce) the people from economic mistakes 

• The absence of middle class and the division of social classes into two - the planners and the people

• Socialism's economic system is characterized by centralized planning despite its impossibility to calculate the real situation in the "market" due to the absence of price system. 

However, Mises admitted that socialism requires an "exhaustive treatment", which was impossible for him to accomplish in six lectures. He advised his readers to consult his other books particularly "Human Action" and also to read the book of a socialist Polish economist Oskar Lange to see the other side of the story.

Other Versions of Socialism

Another discovery that surprised me recently was the realization that even during the early history of the Austrian school of economics, two traditions already existed - the Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk tradition and the Friedrich von Wieser tradition. Ludwig von Mises followed the Bohm-Bawerk tradition whereas von Wieser tradition was adhered by “social democrats” or advocates of mixed economy.

In reading "Planned Chaos", I thought as far as Mises is concerned, there are only two versions of socialism, the Russian and the German or the communist and the interventionist. However, my discovery of "Omnipotent Government" shows that Mises actually saw three forms of socialism - communism, social democracy and Nazism or national socialism. 

Mark Thornton confirmed these three forms of socialism except that Nazism was placed under conservative socialism (together with feudalism, monarchies, and the US Republican Party). Among these three, the most popular and dominant is social democratic socialism where property rights are still allowed, but heavy on taxation,

Another Austrian author, Hans-Hermann Hoppe expanded the three versions of socialism into four in his book, "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism". He shared similar thought both with Mises and Thornton concerning the nature of social democracy. He also confirmed the existence of conservative form of socialism. His new addition is the social engineering form of socialism. 

A Broader Category of Looking at Socialism

So far, we came up with four types of socialism. But still those types are not exhaustive compared to the broader framework provided by Wikipedia. The free web-based encyclopedia distinguished between two general categories of socialism, economic and political. From economic point of view, socialism has four forms - planned economy, self-managed economy, state-directed economy and market socialism. From political perspective, it has five versions (I removed anarchism for I think it has a separate root), which are libertarian socialism (synonymous to left anarchism), democratic socialism, religious socialism (Christian socialism, Islamic socialism and Buddhist socialism), social democracy and syndicalism. So all in all, you can come up with nine or ten versions of socialism. 

Conclusion

As expected, the Facebook thread was left open. Answering a question connected to a sensitive economic and political issues like socialism is not easy. The debate continues. As for me, at least my own reading clarifies that there are at least three ways to define socialism and more than four versions to see it.

Related Article:

What Price Socialism? 

Time to Wean Millennials Off the Lies of Socialism

What is national socialism?

"What is Hitler's national socialism?" asks one member of a Facebook group. I already wrote an article about this several months ago based on the ideas taken from Ludwig von Mises' book "Planned Chaos". However, I lost it when my site encountered a problem. So I thought the question is not that important that I will never return to it. But after reading several responses to that question, I decided to revisit Mises' book and start again from scratch. 

This time it's different. I discovered that Mises has another book, which dealt with national socialism far longer than the one he did in "Planned Chaos". 

In Wikipedia, national socialism is also identified as Nazism. Notable to this definition is the inclusion of the phrase "as well as other related far-right groups." Wikipedia elaborates under the "far right" or "extreme right", political groups or ideologies that support "social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism." "Religious fundamentalist" is also included. 

From the above definition, national socialism is open for further explanation depending on how you will take the meaning of "far right". If you will include capitalism in it, it is understandable that someone will say that capitalism and Nazism are closely connected. And also the definition shows that the political left or the communist version of socialism has nothing to do with national socialism.

However, Ludwig von Mises has a different interpretation based on "Planned Chaos" and "Omnipotent Government". In fact, anyone interested to know Nazism from Mises' point of view, understanding the whole of "Omnipotent Government" is important. The book has 304 pages, but Mises has a separate section exclusively focusing on "German Nazism" from pages 129-239. 

The material that we can read about national socialism in "Planned Chaos" is just a summary of Mises' thought. There we can read the intellectual influence that shaped Nazism, the anti - capitalistic character of Nazism, the influence of Soviet version of socialism and eugenics (I intentionally did not include here Mises' explanation on eugenics). 

Intellectual Influence

"Hitler was not the founder of Nazism: he was its product." Learned Marxist professors influenced his mind and one of them was Werner Sombart. Sombart once "boasted that his life was devoted to the task of fighting for the ideas of Marx" and he "declared that Führertum means a permanent revelation and that the Führer received his orders directly from God, the supreme Führer of the Universe. "

Before the rise of Hitler into power, the German universities had already been prepared to hate capitalism. "For more than seventy years the German professors of political science, history , law , geography and philosophy eagerly imbued Their disciples with a hysterical hatred of capitalism , and preached the war of 'liberation' against the capitalistic West ... At the turn of the century the immense majority of the Germans were already supporters of radical socialism and aggressive nationalism . They were then already firmly committed to the principles" that would later be known as Nazism .

Essential Ideas of Nazism

According to Mises , the essential ideas of Nazism are not of German origin. Their sources came from Latin, French and Jewish intellectuals. The only German ingredient in Nazism "was its striving after the conquests of lebensraum."

Nazism was basically egalitarian. It's aim was to attain "income equality" and "fairer distribution of the earth's natural resources." The Nazis "consider themselves as revolutionaries fighting for their inalienable natural rights against the vested interests of a host of reactionary nations."

So Nazism, contrary to popular belief, "is the purest and most consistent manifestation of the anticapitalistic and socialistic spirit of our age." Their slogan "condensed their economic philosophy, viz., Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz (i.e., the commonweal ranks above private profit)." The Nazi believes "that profit - seeking business harms the vital interests of the immense majority, and that it is the sacred duty of popular government to prevent the emergence of profits by public control of production and distribution." So Nazism "therefore was more comprehensive and more pernicious than that of the Marxians. It aimed at abolishing laissez - faire not only in the production of material goods, but no less in the production of men."

The Soviet Influence

Nazism found an intellectual justification for mass killing through the example of Soviet version of socialism. The Nazis learned to use violence and "mass extermination of all dissenters" as their methodology to advance Nazism. In fact, Mises described the Nazis as the most submissive disciples of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin :

"They imported from Russia : the one - party system and the pre-eminence of this party in political life; the paramount position assigned to the secret police; the concentration camps; the administrative execution or imprisonment of all opponents; the extermination of the families of suspects and of exiles; the methods of propaganda; the organization of affiliated parties abroad and their employment for fighting governments and their domestic espionage and sabotage; the use of the diplomatic and consular service for fomenting revolution; and many other things besides. There were nowhere more docile disciples of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin than the Nazis were. "

So here is the summary of national socialism based on "Planned Chaos". I wish to study it in detail using the "Omnipotent Government".

Was Jesus a socialist? - Part 2

RC: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later, you run out of others people's money." - Lady Margaret Thatcher

JPP: Pareho ba ang social justice at socialism?

RC: magkaiba...ang social justice ay resulta ng tamang gamit ng batas samantalang ang socialism ay ginagamit ang batas that results to injustice...pwedeng ring gamitin ng socialism ang "social justice" sa anyo ng pagmamahal sa mahirap sa kaniyang mga propaganda...

JPP: anong system nga yung counterpart ng socialism?

RC: bagamat iba ang pangalan, pero yong essence ay iisa....two common names that I encounter are interventionism and central planning...pwede rin sabihin...welfarism...

RC: since welfare program is central in socialism, again, I just want to share this quote na kababasa ko lang: " The welfare state, a relatively recent historical concept, has failed miserably all around the world. The inability of politicians to say no or not play Santa Claus appears to be universal. It has every welfare state headed for bankruptcy." - Monty Pelerin's World

JPP: okay naman ang welfare state kung mayaman ang bansa di ba?

FE: di ba ang US welfare state?...turns out na foreign debt is financing the US welfare system

RC: Kaso yon na nga ang primary cause ng budget deficit nila and for welfare to sustain they need to increase the supply of money, which results to increase in prices and lost of consumers purchasing power. So in a way, we can say that welfare state can only be sustained through indirect taxation.

RC: Yes FE...Ayon kay George Reisman ang pinakamalaking banta ngayon sa US ay ang socialism...Paste ko na lang dito yong summary ko ng letter ni Reisman kay Warren Buffet: "George Reisman saw that socialism is the greatest threat to economic freedom. He mourned that the US Supreme Court has already abandoned its duty to protect people’s economic freedom for the last 75 years. Congressmen have passed laws under the influence of Marxist ideology. The real culprit for the economic woes of our time is the government’s growing intervention to prevent people from exercising their freedom to act concerning their basic economic rights and property. If this growing intervention of the government over the economic freedom of individuals would not be corrected, the future of humanity would be slavery and genocide as history clearly demonstrated to us in the experiences of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China."

RC: Sana magwork itong pdf file...ito yong basis na ginamit sa pagsasabi na ang mga welfare states sa europa ay humaharap sa posibleng sovereign bankruptcy ...http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st319.pdf

FE: ang problema natin RC......"socialists" today come across as "champions of the poor".....mga walang meaningful experience in the real world, in how the free market works

DAA: humanist pa more than socialist...socialism is a political system di ba based on an ideology...but humanism is more of an ideology that can be acted out individually.

BP: Interesting exchange

RC: yon na nga FE e...tapos free market pa ang sisisihin na ugat ng problema samantalang kung hindi sa dagdag na kapital ay malabong tumaas ang antas ng pamumuhay ng mga tao sa isang bansa...

DAA: sa socialist system, ang main cause ata ng pag-taas ng "antas ng pamumuhay" is not capital but sharing of resources.

RC: Sir DAA, that remains a future idealism and under experiment pa yan...pero ang tract record nila sa kasaysayan sa experience ng russia, lalong humirap ang buhay ng mga tao dahil nga sa socialism, wala silang price system and that makes economic calculation ang planning impossible...

DAA: ang socialism sa Russia is socialism gone really bad, parang NoKor din.

many European countries are semi-socialist in some aspects ng governance nila.

JPP: Pwede ba ang socialism sa Christianity?

RC: yes DAA, at sabi nila patay na yan since the collapse of USSR, NoKor na lang ang nagpipilit na kung walang foreign aid ay malamang mas tataas pa ang bilang ng mga namamatay sa gutom...so ang alam ko, justification nila diyan ay under experimentation pa ang socialism at nag-eevolve ito hanggang sa makuha ang tamang paraan...ang kaso buhay ng mga tao ang apektado sa experiment nila...okey lang sana kung makina...

RC: Sir JPP may sumubok din niyan...may binabasa akong review dito e, hindi pa tapos..."Christians and Marxists: The Mutual Challenge to Revolution" by Jose Miguez Bonino... "Christian Marxism" ang proposal...ang Christianity daw kasi ay wala naman ino-offer na pilosopiya o politikal o social system at wala ring competence ang Bible pag dating sa socio-economic analysis sapagkat hindi naman theological ang mga ito kundi mga scientific issues...sa realm ng pananampalataya oo, pero sa realm ng kasaysayan hindi...In other words, si Jesus Lord ng Church pero si Marx Lord ng history...parang strawman, pero yan so far yong initial reading ko sa review ni David Chilton.

RC: A quote from Jim West's "Philanthropy, Romans 13, and the Regulative Principle of the State": "The socialists are the fiercest enemies of the Christian faith today! Normatively, they will not declare war upon you. They will not publicly say to you, 'You are now enemy of enemies. Christianity and its governmental implications are the opium of the people. Fight to the death!' No, instead they speak with saccharine language: 'We love you and are concerned about your medical insurance and your future retirement. We want you to know that the proper cultivation of your children's minds is one of our foremost concerns. Your health, education, and welfare come before any of our personal interests. We love you, and have a wonderful plan for your life' " (p. 187).

Was Jesus a socialist?

Sosyalista ba si Jesus? Ito ang katanungan na tinalakay ng isang grupo sa Facebook. Nais kong i-blog yong mga katugunan na sa tingin ko ay may kaugnayan sa tema ng thread. Nais ko na ring itago ang kanilang mga pangalan gamit ang initials. Ganito ang daloy ng talakayan:

______________________________________________________

JPP: "No, Jesus was not a socialist. Had he been, he wouldn't fed the 5,000. He would have told the Roman govt. to do it."

AMM: of course Jesus was more than just a socialist. he was a radical reformer who practice what he preaches.

pero may magandang basa rin sa story about the feeding of the 5000 as a critic against the powers that be during Jesus' time.

in the synoptic (Mt 14, Mk 6, Lk 9), the story immediately follows after John the Baptizer was beheaded by Herod. it was a time of unrest and the people are in search of another leader. and they found one in Jesus.

Jesus stands as a critic against the empire / emperor who lavishes themselves in their castles and extravagance while the people are suffering in poverty and sickness. Jesus wanted to show the true meaning of power and leadership by living a simple life among the marginalized, feeding the hungry and healing the sick and preaching the Gospel about the alternative Kingdom of God.

JB: sosyalista? yan ba yung mga sosyal at pa-sosyal? lol

RC: Baka "libertarian" si Jesus?

BP: Socialist kami dito.

JA: social gospel hehe

RC: Mises' take on socialism. 

http://freedompeaceprosperity.blogspot.kr/2013/06/socialism.html

JPP: RC, ikaw siguro pinaka qualified mag explain ng poster. Ano ba sinasabi nyan?

RC: Siguro personal reflection lang doon sa quote, not necessarily an interpretation of the gospel narrative. 

Malabo talaga na maging socialist si Jesus. Basically kasi ang socialism ay statist at salungat siya sa free market. Okey naman ang welfare provide na ito ay resulta ng voluntary decision ng mga pribadong mamamayan at mga private orgs. Pag gobyerno kasi gumawa niyan, kailangan nila ng pondo. E wala naman silang pera maliban sa pagbubuwis sa mga mamamayan. Ayaw naman ng mga mamamayan na buwisan sila ng direkta at takot din ang mga politiko na mag-advocate ng additional tax. Malamang sa susunod na election talo na ang politikong yan. Pero dahil matindi ang advocacy para tulungan ang mga mahihirap, wala ng ibang paraan para makalikom ng pondo ang gobyerno maliban sa pag-iimprenta ng pera. At kung susuriin mo ang pangmatagalang mga resulta nito, sanga-sangang suliranin sa ekonomiya ang idudulot nito.

JPP:  Naalala ko lang yung mga kristiyanong fascinated sa socialism.

RC: sa pagkakaalam ko, very appealing ang mga socialist literature sa akademya...sa experience ko, sa higher education, karamihan ng readings namin sa adult education mga neo-marxists ang authors...

JB: ako fascinated ako sa socialist and marxist theories.. sino ba naman ayaw ng utopian society without a concept of rich and poor..? although i also acknowledge the realistic benefits of an interdependent free market and globalization... imo..

JB:  di ba ang ideals ni marx is for a society without class struggles and hierarchy.. wherein "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".. wherein everyone shares and everything is owed by the whole community. yun nga lang to achieve that.. according to him dadaan muna sa madugong rebolusyon at pagbagsak ng mga kinagawian institutions.. kasama na dun ang kapitalismo at relihiyon.

JB: may proseso din kasi para marating ang utopia ni marx.. yun nga lang madugo (literally). pero in reality, so far, it has failed (or atleast for USSR at hopefully China, hehe).. at maraming na ring naisulat kung bakit ito bumagsak. para sakin ngayon, mutual economic dependence na dapat.. tulad na lng kung mayroon tayong ineexport na goods or services na wala sa China.. since they need us, they wont harm us.. and vice versa. i think that is more realistic even in the micro scale (ie. di mo aalipustahin ang manggagawa mo dahil nakikinabang ka sa kanya, and vice versa).

FE: ang style kasi ng mga socialist - ipasa lahat sa gobyerno, gobyerno lahat gagawa

JB: hehe.. yun yung Filipino brand of socialism ata. atleast hindi madugo tulad ng maoist..

LF: State capitalism na ata China hindi ba JB?

LF: Or yung mga top brass ng Communist Party at cronies nila ang mga kapitalista?

FE: susmaryosep! paano naging socialist si Hesus?

(walang pinapanigan na economic system si Hesus, at hindi din sya kapitalista. okay?)

FE: may free enterprise at private property na din naman sa China. may stock exchange na nga eh. pero power resides not in the people but in the members of the Communist Party

RC: eto yong sagot ng isang free market advocate: "The works of Marx and Engels centered on the critique of capitalism. It was Lenin who expounded on political and military strategies to overthrow a capitalist society and establish a socialist society, through a socialist revolution."

JPP: basta ako as i'm trying to try to make sense sa mundo ngayon and see how i can help by God's grace as i am also longing for the age to come maranatha

JPP: minsan kasi may dichotomy na one over the other as if you can't aspire for the age to come when you are in the present age. a christian life is more dynamic than that.

sabi nga ni shakespeare, one foot at sea and the other at the shore. that's just the way it is.

RC: socialism has 2 patterns...the russian or marxian pattern and the german pattern...so may katotohanan yong "biro" ni JB na baka yan yong "Filipino brand"

RC: A relevant quote concerning China: "It is sometimes fashionable to claim that China has grown despite NOT being a free market economy. But this is an ignorant statement...And it is easy to see that on almost every indicator China has steadily been opening up its internal and external markets and has reaped the rewards there from. No matter what China's problems today - and there are many - all independent observers agree with the trend that in any given five or ten year period, China has become dramatically more ECONOMICALLY LIBERAL and more BUSINESS FRIENDLY than in the previous period. The same cannot be said for the Philippines." ( John V. C. Nye, "Why QE was good...and how PH should benefit from it", 2011, p. 9).

JB: narinig ko dati sa teacher ko (not sure kung soc sci or hum).. US daw economy is socialist, politics is democracy... ngayon naman daw for China economy is capitalist, politics is socialist...

JB: as for realized eschatology.. sa akin, panalangin ko lang na sana kahit sa loob lang ng ating mga simbahan.. pantay pantay lahat.. walang mahirap, walang mayaman, walang matalino, walang bobo, walang diskriminasyon, walang herarkiya... sana lang naman...

RC: Okey naman ang pagkapantay-pantay o equality, kung ang ibig sabihin ay respeto sa kapwa, walang racial discrimination, at iba pang mga katulad na halimbawa. Pero yong 100% na "walang mahirap, walang mayaman, walang matalino, walang bobo,...walang herarkiya" ay mukhang salungat sa pagkalikha ng Diyos sa tao at sa buong kalikasan. Kung ang kambal nga ay hindi magkatulad sa talino, paano pa kung ihahambing ang sarili sa ibang mga tao. May mga tao talaga na may kakaibang kakayanan, antas ng talino, husay, at galing, ano ang gagawin ng "ideal" na lipunan sa kanila? Paano naman yong may mga kapansanan? Ano naman ang magiging trato ng lipunan sa kanila? Mangyayari lamang ang idealismo ng pagkakapantay-pantay, kung totalitarian ang sistema at makalikha ng ideal DNA ng isang tao. Pero kahit sa puntong yan, imposible pa rin na magkapantay-pantay, dahil may "mamamahala" para gumulong ang sistema. Sisirain ng egalitarian vision ang individuality, creativity, diversity, and variety pati na ang specialization at division of labor na pinakapuso ng productive aspect ng free market economy.

JB: si Maria kumanta ng pagbaliktad ng tatsulok (o si Bamboo yun?! lol!).. actually, mahirap masakatuparan ang ganyang ideal na scenario. pero para sayo RC.. panu ba ang realization ng eschatology na sinabi ni Kristo sa muli nyang pagbalik?

RC: magandang tanong yan Jan, isip muna...may klase ako 4 pm dito

RC:  si Cristo ay nagsimula ng maghari simula ng kaniyang unang pagdating at sa paglipas ng kasaysayan, bagamat may mga pag-urong, ang kaniyang kaharian ay patuloy sa pagsulong sa pamamagitan ng pagkilos ng Banal na Espiritu at ng kaniyang salita sa buhay ng indibidwal na mananampalataya, sa pamilyang Kristiyano, at sa mga lokal na Iglesia. Sa paglipas ng panahon, lalago ang kaalaman ng mga mananampalataya, "mahihinog" ang katawan ni Cristo, matututunan nilang ilapat ang kanilang pananalampataya sa kabuuang aspeto ng buhay ng tao kasama na ang ekonomiya at politika. Sa kanila magsisimula ang "binhi" ng reporma para sa inaasam-asam na panlipunan at ekologikal na pagbabago. Bunga ng impluwensiya ng mga mananampalataya sa lipunan, matututunan ng tao kung paano gamitin ang mga kaloob ng Diyos bilang mga katiwala - higit na mainam na kaalaman at teknolohiya, mga bagong tuklas na likas na yaman, mas mura at mga bagong pagkukunan ng enerhiya na hindi gaanong sisira sa kalikasan, mga bagong tuklas sa medisina na magpapahaba sa buhay ng tao. . .at sa pagdating ni Cristo sa ikalawang pagkakataon, handa na ang kaniyang nobya..

JB: ok yang eschatology na yan.. parang star trek.. hehe.. sa setting ng star trek both capitalism and socialism has collapsed and earth progressed into peace and developed technologies such as clean nuclear fusion and warp drive.. and going to where no man has gone before became their hobbies.. lol!

RC: pang-ilan na ba yong latest star trek? ni isa yata wala pa akong napanood niyan a

Note: And then the discussion from this point shifted into the relevance of Christianity to social justice and politics:

KQ: but did Jesus call for the actual dismantling of Roman rule over Israel? of political independence from Roman rule? as that was hinted by Alvin's comment

no. infact may provision nga na 'turn the other cheek' but i think what is he against is yung abuses also ng empire. thus a christian who upholds the value of what Christ has taught hall value justice. and when there is INJUSTICE in the empire, a subversion is then necessary. not through arms, but through living as SALTS and LIGHTS of this world.

DAA: in that sense, hindi particular sa Roman empire ang opposition ni Jesus.

KQ: tingin ko kasama yung aristocratic rule ng empire knowing na may bilin ang Christianity na pahalagahan ang mga mahihina

KQ: at tinging ko rin kasama ng pangagaral nya ng espirituwalidad ang isyung ethical.

gaya ng mga propeta, isang halimbawa siguro yun micah 6:8

RC: Magandang basahin yang Micah from an economic perspective. Maaappreciate ng exegete ang verses 10 and 11, immediate context na kung saan ay mukhang nakakaligtaan ng mga social justice advocates..

KQ:  sampolan mo nga RC 

RC: Pagkatapos kasing banggitin ng propeta yong requirement ng Panginoon na to "act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" binanggit niya sa verses 10 and 11 ang tungkol sa "ill-gotten treasures", "short ephah", "dishonest scales" at "abag of false weights". Obviously, these four concepts are concrete economic terms and any talk of social justice without dealing with these issues is incomplete or will lead to a distorted concept of justice. Ang challenge ay suriin kung ano ang historical meaning ng mga nabanggit na economic expressions at kung sa papaanong paraan nakikita sa kasalukuyan ang ganitong mga gawain. Eto na yong delikado at sensitibong parte. Tutal nabanggit naman natin ang mga propeta sa OT. Sila kasi kung magpahayag ng salita at manawagan ng pagsisisi, konkreto yong mukha ng kasalanan. Madali lang kasi at safe pag general. Walang magagalit. But if you identified sins in concrete terms just like what prophet Isaiah did in chap 1 of his book and John the baptist in confronting Herod, iba ng usapan yon.

RC: So sa ngayon, ano ang mga posibleng konkretong expressions ng injustice sa larangan ng ekonomiya? Hindi lang sapat na sabihin generally na ang kasakiman ng mga kapitalista ang ugat ng kahirapan. Sa anong kokretong anyo nakikita ang kasakimang ito? Ako I suggest one, printing of paper money, but I will not ascribe it to capitalism

KQ:  hmm i categorized what you pointed out as social justice 

KQ:  naming the evil na yan eh noh. gaya halimbawa ng 'martial law' at extra judicial killings? o kaya ang abuso ng supreme court justice? o kaya ang di tamang pag babayad ng buwis ni lucio tan?

RC: good for you...sa akin kasing experience ng gumawa ako ng paper tungkol sa social justice sa agst 2006 yata yon, pagkatapos kong isurvey yong literature, i settled with donal dorr representing roman catholic stand and wolterstorff representing new reformed epistemology as my primary sources, hindi ko na encounter ang inflation, fiat money, currency debasement as part of social justice issues...

KQ: kasama din ang production eh - what do we produce- what do we sell? sana pati yan kasama sa usaping social justice.

kaso nga para sa iba mali nga daw yan