That isn’t a prerequisite of socialism. And actually Marx sought the dissolution of the State at the hands of social revolution. The worker was supreme in Marx’s views of socialism.
to MountaineerWV re: Dr. King
- Thread starter atlkvb
- Start date
Tell me what your best answer was to the question was Dr. King's solution of Socialism moral or economic and what made either so? What was that answer you gave I didn't want to hear or didn't like MWV?
What was your answer boom? What made Dr. King's solution of Socialism moral? What was that based on?
You are looking even more ridiculous by stating over and over against about "racism"......Dr. King was going for equality, but it was also economic equality for ALL races.......
So what was the moral foundation of him doing so? If there is no answer what made his call for economic equality for all races valid? You said he was an adulterer...how would he know what was equal moral or correct?
I don’t think either MWV or myself ever asserted one form of political ideology over another. MLK did, in economic matters. But geez....that just can’t be.....because by your count, that means he was a horrible Christian and a horrible American.
Or wait a minute....I guess there’s some third option that has to do with how his Christian fundamental morality made his preference for socialist approaches to economy as not socialist at all?
I would argue that the affairs would make him a horrible Christian, but evidently ATL doesn't care.......
I'm saying boom and have been that his moral calling for anything was based on his Christianity...including what ever Socialism you want to pin on him. His morals were driven by his Christianity. What morals drive Socialists?
You are just gone man.....gone. Saying that non-Christians that prefer socialist solutions do not have a moral foundation is foolish. Saying that MLK’s christan moral foundation somehow altered his socialist ideology into something quasi-socialist is just crazy.
I'd say it was the socialist thought in him that made him go that direction......![[thumbsup]](https://res-1.cloudinary.com/rivals/image/upload/tpajusiw2imufeahiuam.png "Thumbs up [thumbsup]")
And his Socialist drive collected morality from?
Or was Dr. King as you described just a horny Social do gooder?
Last edited:
So, his morals were driven by his Christianity? So.......where are all my hookers and orgies then! Dang! And Muslims think they have it made with their virgins, we are allowed whores!
So his Christianity was invalid because he screwed hookers? Was his Socialism invalid too?
What Socialist ideal says Man is equal if wealth needs to be redistributed? Don't you need some rich folks to do that? And if the wealth is redistributed who decides what is equal? There are no wealthy rulers under Socialism?
MWV said it. I never said he was perfect. I said he did recognize he was Sinner and accepted the solution for that. Christ. Socialist don't believe in any Sins except disloyalty to the State and by and large reject Christ as Savior from it.(Sin)
That would have been the better argument for you instead of bringing up "morals".......Would you take Bill Clinton or Donald Trump serious if he were speaking on being a family man?
Maybe before you argue about something for a weekl, you should study it a little more. Socialism as asserted by Marx seeks to eliminate class systems and create a general wealth of living for all within the functioning system. The wealth that Marx sought to redistribute was accumulated through royalty, bureaucratic rule, and the subjugation of the working class. Marx saw this wealth as belonging to the people that were used to gain it for the bourgeoisie. It wasn’t an immoral “robbing” of the rich, it was a reclaiming of the people’s wealth. Marxism isn’t really applicable in modern US times. Only components. This is one reason why your ridiculous absolutism in regards to the labeling of all socialist solutions as Marxist - leftist - communist - and even anti-capitalism is just confusing the actual discussion.
So Marx was absolutely correct that wealth is stolen and belongs equally to everyone else? Then why do Socialsts hate the wealthy? What have they done that requires their wealth to be surrendered arbitrarily? Why can't they keep what they work for?
What is moral about Marx accusing wealthy of people of greed?
No MWV said that BY YOUR THINKING MLK must be a poor Christian because his moral foundation didn’t “drive” his sexual decisions. You call MWV a poor Christian because he doesn’t preach online like you. You claim that all people that advocate socialist solutions are
Socialists, and no socialist can be a good Christian. Ever heard of the transitive property?
If you work and become successful why am I entitled to it? How did you steal it from me?
I never said he was correct did I? I just said you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I also said that Marx was addressing a system created from an oppressive class oriented structure that was implemented and enforced by exploitation and subjugation. And that it doesn’t apply to modern American society.
What would you say is the most moral Socialist position one Socialst can have?
If Socialists believe in wealth equality why are there ruling Socialist eliites? Why isnt everyone equally rich or equally poor?
Contrary to what you believe, there are some that work extremely hard and don't get squat......
You have not convinced me you know what you are talking about either boom. Especially given the fact you can't point to one Socialist experiment based on Marx's philosophy that has worked successfully.
Name it. No Capitalism...just his brand of income redistribtionist Socialism. Hell will freeze over before you find an answer for me.
So, countries like Norway and Sweden you claim aren't socialist because they don't fit your definition.......yet a Christian who commits adultery or sins otherwise is still a Christian.........
Marx wanted NO Capitalism in any of his Socialist utopian State boom. Christians must by definition be Sinners first in order to ask for forgiveness from Sin. But Godless Socialists don't know or care anything about that as long as "Dear Leader" takes care of their needs.
Did I ever ONCE say there was? Did I say that Marxism or absolute socialism was good or even effective? I personally believe in balance. Socialist solutions can sometimes be the best solutions, capitalist solutions can sometimes be the best. I don’t live in a foolish view of the the world like you do.
My whole argument to you boom and one of the questions you dodged was where in a Socialist construct is there room for individual Liberty or Religious morality?
If you can't have wealthy people and you don't need morailty underpinning your Socialist laws, where is there room for Freedom of entrepreneurship and/or Worship not obedient to State demands for income or your Loyalty?
Why do Socialist States kill constituents who simply want to be Free to Worship or Pray? Why do they confiscate your wealth if you simply worked hard to be successful? Why can't they just let everyone live as they choose?
It shows. I also know Christ more intimately than you. Wanna wager who is more influential in Human affairs? Who do you think is more moral boom?
Let me guess.
I'm Christian. That makes me foolish? But I'm narrow minded and obtuse? So Socialism is open minded and tolerant? Why then no Socialists who accept wealthy people and what they believe or how they choose to Worship?
Your narrow mindedness and foolishness, imo, has NOTHING to do with your Christianity
