Should the traits of Kindness and Generosity be considered Socialist ?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

Just a question.

[Donnachaidh]

1. in the Republican playbook - yes.

But anyone else with a heart and mind that works - no.

[BattyDem]

3. To a Republican ...

anything that doesn't align with the "every man for himself" philosophy is Socialist! :eyes:

[nam78_two]

5. Nice graphic

:hi: :)

[BattyDem]

6. Thanks ... I'm still hoping he'll change his mind.

:hi:

[nam78_two]

8. Me too! /nt

[nam78_two]

4. well said/nt

[sam sarrha]

2. probably firstly genetic, secondly learned, thirdly a Revelation like Paul

but thirdly might not always be a total fix, just a taste one must continue to work on to truly assimilate

[DanCa]

9. I think that some people are born mean.

It doesn't matter as to what political party, and or religious group that they belong too. I mean just look at some of the threads in religion theology forum. I am a proud lefty but I don't equate niceness as being part of a political platform.

[sam sarrha]

19. it is apparent that people seem to be born with a predisposition..

we all must start where we are, reguardless of our karma

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

10. Nice Icon you have chosen,

[cynatnite]

7. I consider those the traits of nice people no matter their affiliation n/t

[JitterbugPerfume]

11. my republican sister

Is one of the kindest ,most generous people I know


go figure

[cyclezealot]

29. it happens

My belief in most Republicans, they are either uninformed or selfish. As they say, if you are not outraged, you are uninformed. I know we all have various levels of social conscience. But, I can think of one Republican who I say, cares little if there are homeless. She thinks if you are poor , you deserve to be poor. Opportunities are limitless and all that crap.
Yet, as an individual she is incredibly nice to us and all others.
She actually believes private charity can cure all our problems.Yet, the average dedicated repug we've met, I'd call greedy b******s.

[cali]

32. My ex

may be one of the kindest people I know, and he constantly demonstrates it by doing things very few people know about- he's got an MA in accounting and he does peoples' taxes for free who can't afford it, as well as doing the books for some small non-profits. He runs the town skating rink for nothing. And yes, he's a republican.

[Gman]

12. Not only are they socialist

but a definite sign of low testosterone.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

15. IS that you, Gordon?

[cyclezealot]

13. Interesting your avatar is Einstein.

He'd agree. Einstein was a committed Socialist. That's why the FBI wanted to track him and consider booting him out of the country the way they did Charlie Chaplin. Einstein felt the only solution for world peace was Socialism, as I have read.

[bobbolink]

14. Sure looks that way. For sure it isn't conservative!!! ^_^

I think I'm adding this to my revised language. :)

[malaise]

16. Both traits are Socialist

but there are others who practice them.
The Quakers were the first group to campaign against slavery. What was remarkable about their protests was that they led the first international struggle against a crime that did not affect them.

[TygrBright]

17. Why would you think the crime of slavery did not affect Quakers?

I will grant you that there were few black Quakers and Quakers as a group were not forcibly enslaved. However, they understood the principle that slavery damages the slaveholders as much (if not more) than the enslaved. The spiritual shattering required to dehumanize and systematically brutalize a whole class of human beings damages everyone concerned, up to and including the society that permits it.

Which is the worse ultimate degredation? Being forcibly enslaved by powers far beyond your capability to resist? Or being the kind of person who can forcibly enslave others?

Let's put it this way: If you were a religious (Christian) person (devoutly so, a sincere follower of Christ,) who would you be more likely to perceive as being at deep risk of eternal damnation? Slaves or slaveholders?

Unfortunately, forcing the slaveholders to turn loose of their slaves only saved them from the legal and technical offense of dehumanizing others. As we know, it didn't necessarily change their belief that they were somehow entitled to do so.

sadly,
Bright

[malaise]

18. I was writing about the Quakers in England

who were part of the Society for the Abolition of Slavery in England. They were offended by slavery but they were not slaves.

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/antislavery.html
<snip>
One of the earliest voluntary organisations in Britain which was devoted to a single cause was the anti-slavery movement. In 1787 a committee of twelve was appointed, including six members of the Society of Friends (Quakers). The Quakers had set up a committee of their own in 1783 in order to obtain and publish "such information as may tend to the abolition of the slave trade." Two other members of the committee were Thomas Clarkson and Granville Sharp. These men in particular went to great lengths to collect evidence, finding out precisely how little space was allotted to slaves on the ships and similar details. They began to publish pamphlets to stir public opinion against the trade.

Add.

[theHandpuppet]

20. Should they be? NO. But are they in today's America? YES.

And to be perfectly honest, I don't know how that happened. Somewhere along the line, we lost our way.

[Minstrel Boy]

21. some would say....

"While there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free" - Eugene V Debs

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality" - Che Guevera

"Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from within capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington. We have to re-invent socialism. It can’t be the kind of socialism that we saw in the Soviet Union, but it will emerge as we develop new systems that are built on cooperation, not competition." - Hugo Chavez

[havocmom]

22. I always wondered about Christianity and Communism

Either, practiced well, would be pretty much like the other.

Or am I just getting feeble minded?

[kentuck]

23. Jesus! Some of you people act like "bleeding-heart" liberals..

Standing on corners with your heads bowed, thorns for a tophat, looking down like humble children, speaking of kindness and generosity to others, as the tyrants walk by with their clubs and weapons of intimidation, fat and snorty like pigs in November. Who do you think you are! :sarcasm:

[LWolf]

24. No.

You are more likely to find more abundant kindness and generosity in some sort of socialist system than capitalist, in my opinion, but they are not necessarily "socialist" characteristics.

A system based on a founding principle of equality, of equal value, of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is a better incubator of kindness and generosity than a system based on competition and "might makes right."

[pinto]

25. No.

[Vidar]

26. Thanks on behalf of my fellow socialists. I'm ready for my close up,

Mr. DeMille.

[cyclezealot]

27. I recall the benediction at a Dem. Socialists dinner.

It was a special breakfast for the visit of Bernie Sanders.. This is in rememberance of all the lives in America that have been wasted by neglect over the last 200 years. We are proud not just to be liberals but Socialists. Socialism is the only way to tame the ravages of run away Capitalism and to stop it from destroying itself.
I have not the slightest doubt that Jesus would be an active Socialist. Can you imagine Jesus setting at a table with the likes of Pat Buchanan and sharing their belief in brotherhood/sisterhood.

[hfojvt]

28. the other way around - socialism should be about kindness and generosity

instead of letting that blather about "ownership of the means of production" get in the way

"I suggest that the real objective of Socialism is not happiness. Happiness hitherto has been a by-product, and for all we know it may always remain so. The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to be the case, though it is not usually said, or not said loudly enough. Men use up their lives in heart-breaking political struggles, or get themselves killed in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo, not in order to establish some central-heated, air-conditioned, strip-lighted Paradise, but because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of swindling and murdering one another." George Orwell

[T_i_B]

30. Many Socialists would like to think so

Although in reality Lefties are just as mean-spirited as the rest of us.

[cyclezealot]

33. every socialist function I've been to.

The crowd had a religion of love for humankind. Some time we get overzealous in our dislike of those who deny other's their human rights. Yes, Communists had their thugs who murdered innoncents. But, Communists are not lefties.
Darn near every leftie I have met Have had a gentile nature and raise their kids to have a soul.

[Kailassa]

31. No, they are anarchist traits.

if enough people were kind and generous, we would not need socialism.

If enough people were like that, anarchism would work.

[cyclezealot]

34. Societies do not work on an individual basis.

Economic models are based on a collective endeavor, whether they be corporate or publically controlled. Individuals don't run the world, massive organizations do. Whether they be the government of big business.
The question is how individuals work together to organize or run large economic units. How one treats your neighbor has little to do how socities are organized or what your place is in that society.
If we all lived on an Isreli Kubitz we might have some control over our lives, but we don't .

[Kailassa]

35. You're talking about the real world.

It's quite different in my dream world.

O8)

[cyclezealot]

36. I am sure it would be a worthy world.

[Nikia]

37. According to my Republican grandparents, no

To them, socialism forces people to be generous to others through an inefiicient manner (giving it to the government) which negates individuals being kind and generous on their own.
Although they might have had a point to some extent, it is important to have government programs to help all people who might find themselves in bad economic circumstances rather than hope that generous individuals and independent organizations will help them. For example, in some situations, the economic situation of the whole town goes downhill after a few key employers close or go through major lay offs. As a result, demand at a local food bank might go up because more people need it while donations go down because they are less able to contribute at the same time. It also seems lately that many, especially many Republicans, look at personal generosity less favorably than they did in the past.