# What if Moses were a Marxist?



## RamistThomist (May 8, 2007)

Exodus 20



> 15Thou shalt not steal.



Now, if Moses were a Marxist (or anyone who denied private property), he could immediately rebut God by saying that stealing presupposes, at one level, private property. It assumes there is something that the government doesn't own.

Hat Tip to R.C. Sproul Jr.


----------



## Davidius (May 8, 2007)

Interesting observation.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 8, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Exodus 20
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Christian morality and law is all part of the bourgeoisie superstructure which furthers the interests of capitalism anyway.  

Good post Jacob. Take that you Marxists!


----------



## IanWatson (May 8, 2007)

That is a very good thought. I would have never thought of that.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 8, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Exodus 20
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good try, no cigar. One can also steal something that is collectively owned. Try and take something that belongs to a national park sometime. Theft does not require personal property.

Sproul Jr. swings, he misses...


----------



## Puritanhead (May 8, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Good try, no cigar. One can also steal something that is collectively owned. Try and take something that belongs to a national park sometime. Theft does not require personal property.
> 
> Sproul Jr. swings, he misses...


 What if Fred were a Marxist? After all, he is getting all defensive about collectively-owned state-owned property. Property is a bourgeosie concept. You can't steal from the collective, Fred. 

As Marx said, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." Anyhow, I always needed my own tank. So, just the other week, I permanently requisitoned a Type 88 tank from the parking lot of the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C., brought it home and parked in my driveway. This Friday I am getting it detailed, and painting it orange like the General Lee.

Drats! I just got a phone call from my lawyer, and he told me I got a writ of detinue filed against me, and they want their tank back ASAP. Stupid communists!! They're always using our bourgeosie American legal system to try and claim our private property! I squatted that tank fair and square. It's mine! 

PARODY


----------



## staythecourse (May 9, 2007)

*Wiki and person*

Working definition of person as can relate to government

A juristic person is an artificial entity through which the law allows a group of natural persons to act as if it were a single composite individual for certain purposes

Grounder to first.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 9, 2007)

staythecourse said:


> Working definition of person as can relate to government
> 
> A juristic person is an artificial entity through which the law allows a group of natural persons to act as if it were a single composite individual for certain purposes
> 
> Grounder to first.



Except that a jurisitic person assumes positive law that is not inherent in the moral fabric of the universe (i.e. the Ten Commandments). Hence the term "artificial" entity - or in other words, an entity invented by (sinful, post-Fall) men.

At best a foul tip. Below the Mendoza line.


----------



## staythecourse (May 9, 2007)

*So in a perfect sinless society*

perfect communism?

I've gone down that route before and refered to the Pentecostal church as being holy communism before Ananias introduced practicing-sin into the church.

Was that your conclusion?


----------



## fredtgreco (May 9, 2007)

staythecourse said:


> perfect communism?
> 
> I've gone down that route before and refered to the Pentecostal church as being holy communism before Ananias introduced practicing-sin into the church.
> 
> Was that your conclusion?



No. Communism presupposes godlessness.

My point (as an ardent capitalist) was not that capitalism is wrong, but that the exercise in stretching the Bible to cover one's political beliefs is a waste of time.

I would also say that capitalism will not exist in glory, for there will be no lack, no need, and certainly no need to use man's sinful tendencies for the greater good (as Smith's invisible hand aptly shows).


----------



## staythecourse (May 9, 2007)

*Communalism rather than Communism*

Is that the conclusion? This does not exclude God neccessarily but seems to fit what you define Heaven-society as.


----------



## G.Wetmore (May 9, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Exodus 20
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have thought on this as well. But I also think that if Marx gave a rip about what Scripture said, that he would probably just say that you are somewhat correct, with a false inference. He would say that you are correct in that stealing presupposes property, but that you weren't correct in infering that it is private property. He would simply say that verse means you can't jack the government. 

Of course he would have to deal with all of the case law, which further define the law. The case law would prove that it assumes the existence of private property. 

home run.


----------



## G.Wetmore (May 9, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> My point (as an ardent capitalist) was not that capitalism is wrong, but that the exercise in stretching the Bible to cover one's political beliefs is a waste of time.
> 
> I would also say that capitalism will not exist in glory, for there will be no lack, no need, and certainly no need to use man's sinful tendencies for the greater good (as Smith's invisible hand aptly shows).





> 2Tim. 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
> 2Tim. 3:17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.



I sounds to me like Paul had the idea that God's word equiped us for every good work. Which would include good works in the socio-political arena, as well as in the ecclesiastical. Therefore, I would hardly agree that it is a waste of time to Biblically equip ourselves for political deeds.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 9, 2007)

G.Wetmore said:


> I have thought on this as well. But I also think that if Marx gave a rip about what Scripture said, that he would probably just say that you are somewhat correct, with a false inference. He would say that you are correct in that stealing presupposes property, but that you weren't correct in infering that it is private property. He would simply say that verse means you can't jack the government.
> 
> Of course he would have to deal with all of the case law, which further define the law. The case law would prove that it assumes the existence of private property.
> 
> home run.



What is ownership of private property? How does that interact with the concept of stewardship?

Are you ready to state that there was private property in the garden before the Fall? Because Adam had the moral law. Are you willing to state that there will be private property in glory? Because the moral Law is eternal.

You see, Sproul has placed himself in the place of making private property a 
an eternal matter. If the moral Law of God presupposes a human institution, what does that mean.

In order to make a (weak and unhelpful) hoo-rah for capitalism, this view butchers the theology of the Law. Why is it not simply possible to say that private property is a post-Fall concept that God uses to support His eternal Law?

All Scripture is indeed profitable, and indeed it is proper to bring Scripture to bear on society. But it is quite another thing to load up human categories onto the eternal will of God.

Less a home run and more hitting oneself in the face with a bat.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 9, 2007)

All of you pinkos will be subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee.



trevorjohnson said:


> They may be "collectively owned" but how this works out in our great American system is that all people help take care of them and all people can enjoy them, in other words national parks are entrusted to the gov't for the benefit of the people.


 That sounds like something Joseph Stalin would say, huh? Comrade Trevor. You just keep hanging out at Jellystone National Park, and spreading your socialist agitprop about how the "great American system" is "collectively owned." 



staythecourse said:


> perfect communism?
> 
> I've gone down that route before and refered to the Pentecostal church...


You pinko liberation theologian. 



fredtgreco said:


> No. Communism presupposes godlessness.


I was being tongue-in-cheek beforehand as I am now.



fredtgreco said:


> Are you ready to state that there was private property in the garden before the Fall? Because Adam had the moral law. Are you willing to state that there will be private property in glory? Because the moral Law is eternal.


Exodus 20:15 says, "Thou shalt not _steal_." But somehow Fred thinks it's okay to _steal_ before the fall of man, because private property is a post-Fall concept. Besides, isn't that exactly how mankind fell in the first place? By denying God's private property rights to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam fell and brought all of humanity with him. Adam _stole_ that apple, yet Fred denies that thievery is even wrong at the time, because he dismisses it as a post-Fall bourgeoisie concept. I'm on to your sneaky socialist ways. You're not fooling anyone with your crypto-communism there. Fred, how long have you been a member of the Communist Party?



fredtgreco said:


> Why is it not simply possible to say that private property is a post-Fall concept that God uses to support His eternal Law?


 Come on. Do you really expect us to believe capitalism is not transcendent, eternal and immutable? What left-wing Red propaganda are you going to give us next Comrade Fred? 



fredtgreco said:


> I would also say that capitalism will not exist in glory, for there will be no lack, no need, and certainly no need to use man's sinful tendencies for the greater good (as Smith's invisible hand aptly shows).


 More proof that Fred is a Marxist. He thinks Heaven is a socialist worker's paradise. 

Just kidding.


----------



## B.J. (May 13, 2007)

> Now, if Moses were a Marxist (or anyone who denied private property), he could immediately rebut God by saying that stealing presupposes, at one level, private property. It assumes there is something that the government doesn't own.
> 
> Hat Tip to R.C. Sproul Jr.




Here's a thought......Let us rid ourselves of all private property so that we cannot break the 8th commandment. That's what I think Marx would have said. One less thing to worry about, right?


I must confess. It is a little scary to hear Christians running around proclaiming themselves to be ardent Captialist. I find that most times Christians who say this dont even understand Marx, and the way in which he used the word Capital. Capital for the Marxist, and the kind I am am opposed to, is referred to as _surplus labor, or surplus value._ Read here if you are not familiar


I am not opposed to the concept of a free market so long as the owner of said company plays an equal part in the production of said goods. Sitting behind a desk, micro managing hundreds of workers isn't work, its theft. Dont be fooled. If you have a business, and I do, and you are not involved hands-on in its product, and you leave your workers to do task which are valued higher than you pay them, you are stealing from them. What are you stealing....lets see...time with their family, time for themselves, the amount of value thier labor is actually worth, etc..

All the talk I hear about, "Well, they agreed to work for a certain amount and thats fair" is just plain and simple hog wash. Workers in a Capitalistic society, which is a society that practices surplus labor like the U.S., are trapped. For those who do work they have to agree to the terms of the Capitalist because they own everything. Capitalist know this and revel in its convience. What workers should do is wake up an realize that the power is in thier hands, and not the ones alienating them from themselves. I am not a commie, but I do think Marx and Engels are right that_ surplus labor/value_ are wrong. Just my .02

Does anyone here think _surplus labor_ is morally right, or biblical?


----------



## smhbbag (May 13, 2007)

> If you have a business, and I do, and you are not involved hands-on in its product, and you leave your workers to do task which are valued higher than you pay them, you are stealing from them.



If you pay them equal to, or more than, the value of their labor, it is not possible for a business to stay in business.

Labor/employment is a mutually beneficial exchange. You value his labor for you more than you value the dollars you give him, ostensibly because his labor will bring you more money than you pay him. You receive net gain from his work for you - if it was even, and you paid him all he was worth to you, why are you in business at all? You're just trading things of equal value, never accomplishing anything. 

He values his time and labor less than he values the money you offer, and so he trades that time/labor for your money voluntarily.

*Both of you are making profit *- that is, you're both better off with the deal than without it. So, if he believes that he is getting more from you than he is giving - is he stealing from you also?



> All the talk I hear about, "Well, they agreed to work for a certain amount and thats fair" is just plain and simple hog wash.



If scripture is hogwash, then yes. Matthew 20:1-15. Voluntary transactions are, by definition, NOT theft. It IS fair. If it wasn't fair, why did you agree to it?



> Sitting behind a desk, micro managing hundreds of workers isn't work, its theft.



Yes, it is work, and it is highly valuable work. That is, someone who does that job well will bring in much more value for the company than the laborers he supervises. His wages will naturally reflect that - the supply for people good at that job is lower, and demands a higher price to retain its services. And that is fair and just.

When there is no force, there is no theft.

Should all those scumbag, thieving micromanaging managers be locked up for their theft? Should they be punished by the state? Please actually answer this question - as it will prove whether you REALLY believe it is theft.

I believe I receive more value in compensation for my work than I put into it - am I a thief? 
Those I supervise also feel they get more in compensation than they put into it - are they stealing from me/the company?


----------



## Puritanhead (May 13, 2007)

B.J. said:


> Does anyone here think _surplus labor_ is morally right, or biblical?


 Even by asking that question, you are butressing intellectual Marxism, _which helps the enemy_. Communism is the enemy.


----------



## satz (May 13, 2007)

> I am not opposed to the concept of a free market so long as the owner of said company plays an equal part in the production of said goods. Sitting behind a desk, micro managing hundreds of workers isn't work, its theft. Dont be fooled. If you have a business, and I do, and you are not involved hands-on in its product, and you leave your workers to do task which are valued higher than you pay them, you are stealing from them. What are you stealing....lets see...time with their family, time for themselves, the amount of value thier labor is actually worth, etc..



BJ,

Aren’t you forgetting that God was the one who ordained that there be masters and servants/slaves? God required masters to treat their slaves well, but I can’t see anything that would require them to pay them exactly the value of their finished product, or to get down and work alongside them. 

In Matthew 20:1-16, Jesus Christ compares the kingdom of heaven to a householder finding workers for his vineyard. The man never gets down and works in the vineyard himself, nor does he say the workers have a right to tell him how much they should be paid. They have right to what is _reasonable_, but not more.

In another parable (Matt 25:15- 30) the Lord compared the kingdom of heaven to a man who took a trip and left some talents with his servants. The servants were expected to work the talents and grow them. The man never helped them at all, and when he returned he considered both the original talents and the newly acquired ones his own, and held the servants accountable for their productivity. 

Now obviously real life masters (or employers, as we call them today) must be more cautious to not Lord it over their employees and pay them a fair sum, but the distinction between masters and servants is still there. I don’t see any (perhaps you can point it out to me if I have missed it ) indication that the bible makes the distinction of surplus capital like Marx and Engels do.



> All the talk I hear about, "Well, they agreed to work for a certain amount and thats fair" is just plain and simple hog wash. Workers in a Capitalistic society, which is a society that practices surplus labor like the U.S., are trapped. For those who do work they have to agree to the terms of the Capitalist because they own everything. Capitalist know this and revel in its convience. What workers should do is wake up an realize that the power is in thier hands, and not the ones alienating them from themselves. I am not a commie, but I do think Marx and Engels are right that surplus labor/value are wrong. Just my .02



Again, it seems to me this logic fails in the face of the fact that the Lord himself allowed people to own slaves and employ servants in both Testaments. The ‘Master’ is as much a God ordained position of authority as the husband or parent is. And the New Testament Epistles emphasize this fact, speaking of the duties of servants toward masters five time in all, almost as much emphasis as is placed on marriage or parenting (Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:22-25, 1 Tim 6:1-5, Titus 2:9-15, 1 Pet 2:18). 

With respect, I disagree that the power is in the hands of workers. It is in the hands of masters/employers, because that is where God put it. As I see it, for workers to stand up against their masters is no different from wives or children standing up against their husbands or parents.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 14, 2007)

B.J. said:


> Does anyone here think _surplus labor_ is morally right, or biblical?


 Seriously, I know I have been letting out the tongue-in-cheek banter. But your arguments have their basis in Marxist political thought and concepts on political economy. I think you are errant especially in invoking the concept of surplus labor which is an intrinsically Marxist notion.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 14, 2007)

socialism must fail economically because of the economic calculation problem—the impossibility of a socialist government being able to make the economic calculations required to organize a complex economy. Mises projected that without a market economy there would be no functional price system, which he held essential for achieving rational allocation of capital goods to their most productive uses. Socialism would fail as demand cannot be known without prices, according to Von Mises.



> The only certain fact about Russian affairs under the Soviet regime with regard to which all people agree is: that the standard of living of the Russian masses is much lower than that of the masses in the country which is universally considered as the paragon of capitalism, the United States of America. If we were to regard the Soviet regime as an experiment, we would have to say that the experiment has clearly demonstrated the superiority of capitalism and the inferiority of socialism



http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Mises/msSApp.html


----------



## Puritanhead (May 14, 2007)

You're right Jacob. Originally, following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, they came up with the crazy idea of doing away with money, but it became a miserable morrass so they reintroduced money much to the chagrin of Marxist purists. Afterwards, they came up with Marxist rationales about how they were in a state of evolution towards a pure communist society.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 14, 2007)

Funny thing is they have never shown us a "pure, communist society," or even a happy one for that matter.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 14, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Funny thing is they have never shown us a "pure, communist society," or even a happy one for that matter.


 I always found the most compelling examples of why socialism is such a failure in practical life experiences. A case in point. Just look at the deplorable state of most public restrooms. They are an absolute mess 7 out of 10 times you visit. Why one may wonder? Stewardship—and the lack thereof. No one has much incentive to take care of it like their own. Even if a corporation or state owns it, those in charge rarely attentively take care of what doesn't belong to them. Not surprisingly, the foolish gambit of collectivism and abolishing private property as an institution proves to be an abysmmal failure whereever tried, and seldom tenable where it is tried. Communism and socialism are fundamentally at odds with human nature.


----------



## non dignus (May 14, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> I sure am glad for national parks.
> 
> They may be "collectively owned" but how this works out in our great American system is that all people help take care of them and all people can enjoy them, in other words national parks are entrusted to the gov't for the benefit of the people.



Remember the Fed's solution to a budget crunch a few years ago? For a couple' days the Grand Canyon was " closed " !!

Only a bureaucrat could conceive of, and order the closing of the Grand Canyon.


----------



## B.J. (May 14, 2007)

Good morning! I awake to find comments about my .02 that seem to indicate I am alone on this matter. Fair enough. I must say first that I am in process with these concepts, and if it were not for my Marxist professors I studied under I might not be in the position I am. They just always made surplus labor out to be a greed driven device that causes mankind more greive than it is worth, that being _class conflict_. Anyway let me interact a little....


Jeremy,


> If you pay them equal to, or more than, the value of their labor, it is not possible for a business to stay in business.



You assume that a business requires workers and it doesn't. I have had workers, and not had workers. When I had workers I was always there getting dirty with them. Capitalism, as you would have it, has the owner seperate from the worker, perched in an office drinking coffee and deciding how lean the company can get in order to gain more profit. Your idea of a business does not have to exist. You are for it because of greed and self interest.



> Labor/employment is a mutually beneficial exchange. You value his labor for you more than you value the dollars you give him, ostensibly because his labor will bring you more money than you pay him.




No, it isn't. Thats what Capitailist would have us believe. Workers only agree to the terms of the Capitalist because they are subtly forced to, and the Capitalist know this. I vaule his labor for exactly what I give him not a penny more. And yes his labor will bring a Capitalist more than they pay him. Thats called using a mans labor as a means for Capitalist to accumulate wealth. They didn't buy that surplus labor, they stole it because they could. Now granted there are thoses lazy bums that will not work, but for those who want food in thier mouths and their families mouths they will agree to the preposterous terms offered by the Capitalist. Can't you see this is the case. Tell you what...go ask your workers if they think it is fair that you hire them to perform task "X" for their current salary, and then tell them the surplus labor that you get from their efforts and see if they think that is fair.



> You receive net gain from his work for you - if it was even, and you paid him all he was worth to you, why are you in business at all? You're just trading things of equal value, never accomplishing anything.



So the only reason you are in business is to accumulate wealth at the expense of others?



> He values his time and labor less than he values the money you offer, and so he trades that time/labor for your money voluntarily



 Yeah right. Go ask your workers! Time on earth is priceless. No man has the right to impose a price, or value for a persons time. Butwhatever helps you sleep at night.




> Both of you are making profit - that is, you're both better off with the deal than without it. So, if he believes that he is getting more from you than he is giving - is he stealing from you also?



Thats why the task he performs should be solely his and none should belong to you. Your question assumes that your view is correct. He should not be stealing from me because I should not own his surplus labor. The only way a worker can steal from a boss is if the worker understands that the boss is making money, his money, off him.




> If scripture is hogwash, then yes. Matthew 20:1-15. Voluntary transactions are, by definition, NOT theft. It IS fair. If it wasn't fair, why did you agree to it?



So, you think Jesus taking a cultural element to teach the Jews that he would soon adopt Gentiles for the same price, His blood, is a lesson in economics?

The only instance something can be fair, as we are discussing it, is if no outside factors are influencing the decisions being made. In your scenarion, for some reason, you pretend that the workers are bound by nothing, freely signing up to work for you becasue they have nothing better to do. 




> Yes, it is work, and it is highly valuable work. That is, someone who does that job well will bring in much more value for the company than the laborers he supervises.



 


I'll bet you have a company truck...dont you?




> Should all those scumbag, thieving micromanaging managers be locked up for their theft? Should they be punished by the state? Please actually answer this question - as it will prove whether you REALLY believe it is theft.



Well, in my plant the managers are pawns just like everyone else only with more responsibility. As for those who actually own the means of production....sure why not, their theives. They are probabaly guilty of more than that in order to get where they are today. 




> I believe I receive more value in compensation for my work than I put into it - am I a thief?
> Those I supervise also feel they get more in compensation than they put into it - are they stealing



No. You as well as those you supervise are merely decieving yourselves.


----------



## B.J. (May 14, 2007)

> Even by asking that question, you are butressing intellectual Marxism, which helps the enemy. Communism is the enemy.





I thought it was a fair question since you condone it.


----------



## Chris (May 14, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Exodus 20
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Is theft limited to real estate? 

What about theft of knowledge (extramarital sex, gossip?)? Theft of food? Alienation of affection?


----------



## smhbbag (May 14, 2007)

Here is part of the foundational problem, B.J.



> No. You as well as those you supervise are merely decieving yourselves.



How in the world can you be a better judge of the value of my work than I am? 

The entirety of your post assumes that an outside, third party such as yourself can establish an objective 'value' for labor, and determine whether there is 'surplus' that is not being compensated for.

On what basis can you do that accurately? You can't. 

You say I'm not a thief, because I'm just mistaken. 

But in my heart, you believe my motivations are no better than a thief's. 

*So, you're saying I'm trying to steal from them, I'm just too stupid to actually accomplish it *- because I am getting something of less value than I give. 

Stupid thieves are still thieves.

Telling a thief he made a net loss on his thievery does not absolve his crime. It just makes him a dumb thief. Net gain is not required to prove stealing.

So go ahead and say it - "Anyone who believes the compensation received from their employer is more valuable than the effort they put into work - is a thief and ought to be punished by the State."

I think you just called a healthy majority of the PuritanBoard thieves.

______________________________________________________________________________

*Would you kick me out of your church and refuse to eat at a table with me?*

I Cor. 5:9-11 says: 



> wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. *But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is *immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or *a robber*, not even to eat with such a person.



I am openly admitting that my heart is that of a robber, by your definition. And I have no shame or repentance about it. In fact, I exult in it. 

So what's your call?


----------



## B.J. (May 14, 2007)

Jermey,


I answered your question and I did not call you a thief, only deceived.

you asked:




> Quote:
> Should all those scumbag, thieving micromanaging managers be locked up for their theft? Should they be punished by the state? Please actually answer this question - as it will prove whether you REALLY believe it is theft.



My answer: 



> Well, in my plant the managers are pawns just like everyone else only with more responsibility. As for those who actually own the means of production....sure why not, their theives. They are probabaly guilty of more than that in order to get where they are today.





The only way you can get to the conclusion that you are a theif in this answer is if you own the means of production. Do you? If yes then you are a thief. If you are only a manager than you are a pawn as I have already made clear.




> So go ahead and say it - "Anyone who believes the compensation received from their employer is more valuable than the effort they put into work - is a thief and ought to be punished by the State."



No, I wont say that. I will say you are decieved. That is, you seem content in your job. Which is the attitude the Capitalist would prefer you be in.




> I think you just called a healthy majority of the PuritanBoard thieves.



Are you the spokes person for the PB prolateriat class now? Truth is if a man or women are happy, content, excited, joyful, etc. with their job so be it. It still doesn't justify surplus labor. Most workers probably dont even know what it is, and the Capitalist wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## satz (May 14, 2007)

Hi BJ,

Just to ensure I am understanding you correctly;



> I vaule his labor for exactly what I give him not a penny more. And yes his labor will bring a Capitalist more than they pay him. Thats called using a mans labor as a means for Capitalist to accumulate wealth. They didn't buy that surplus labor, they stole it because they could.



If a worker is employed in a factory producing X, and X sells for $25 on the market, what should the worker be paid?


----

Apart from that, just checking, but did you see my first post? I still fail to see how your arguments are compatible with the master-servant relationships we see in the bible. God did not even think it wrong for a master to own the _persons_ of his servants, not to talk about their labor. 

God did not create all men equal socially. There are masters and servants, rich and poor, and that is the way he ordained the world. The equality he wants between men (apart from legal equality in judgment) is in terms of necessary items like food, water, clothing, housing. 

It seems to me you have offered a lot of philosophical reasons for why you believe what you believe, but those are not bible reasons.

Where does the bible say a master must get down and work with his servants?

Where does the bible support the idea that the owners of means of production are thieves?

Where does the bible even support the definition of surplus capital?


----------



## Pilgrim (May 14, 2007)

I haven't listened to them, but these messages on communism, etc. by F.N. Lee may be of interest.


----------



## B.J. (May 14, 2007)

Mark,





> If a worker is employed in a factory producing X, and X sells for $25 on the market, what should the worker be paid?



Well, my first inclination is to say $25. No, I got it. The worker should be payed $24.97. That way the Capitalist makes .03 surplus labor. That seems fair, right? 

As for the kingdom parables, are you suggesting that Jesus is lecturing on economics? I can't find a single commentator that thinks Jesus is teaching anyhting about Capitalism. Maybe Gary North.




> Where does the bible say a master must get down and work with his servants?



I am not sure that it does. Should it? My wife just had a C section instead of natural child birht due to complications. Does the Bible condone that? Should it?







> Where does the bible support the idea that the owners of means of production are thieves?



As much as I believe in the suffiency of Scripture I also hold to the insuffiency of Scripture. And in this case, I dont think the Bible lays out the economic superstructure that Christian Capitalist want it to. I am open to the idea though. I just refuse to read 8,000 pages of Gary North. 



> Where does the bible even support the definition of surplus capital?



Thats a good question for a Capitalist who needs it to justify its use, Scripturally speaking. I asked that earlier. I wanted someone to show me that surplus labor was biblical.


----------



## satz (May 14, 2007)

Hi BJ,

Thanks for your reply.



> As for the kingdom parables, are you suggesting that Jesus is lecturing on economics? I can't find a single commentator that thinks Jesus is teaching anyhting about Capitalism. Maybe Gary North.



No, I am not at all suggesting Jesus was lecturing on capitalism. My point was that Jesus would not use an essentially immoral practice (if what you are saying is correct) to compare with the Kingdom of Heaven. Now the bible does sometimes compare God and his kingdom to worldly things, but it is always to make a specific point, and we are always told why. So the second coming is compared to a thief because of its unexpectedness. God is compared to an unjust judge who listens to a widow because of her persistence as an ‘if even he will listen, than won’t God…’ example to teach Christians perseverance in prayer. I do not see the same happening in the kingdom examples.



> I am not sure that it does. Should it? My wife just had a C section instead of natural child birht due to complications. Does the Bible condone that? Should it?



If you say the bible does not command it (master working with their servants), than how can you condemn those who don’t? 

You were free to have a C-section because the bible never condemns it. Some want to bring up the idea that there is a duty to take care of life etc, but I don't see that is necessary since the bible never even raises the idea that a C-section would be wrong. It is your freedom.

Likewise workers are under the authority of their employer or master, and he can do with them what he wishes. The bible does not command him to help them in the specific tasks they are performing. Of course, sloth is wrong, but if the master wishes to occupy his time in other ways, that is his choice. Again, I don't see from the bible that management or oversight is somehow not considered work.



> As much as I believe in the suffiency of Scripture I also hold to the insuffiency of Scripture. And in this case, I dont think the Bible lays out the economic superstructure that Christian Capitalist want it to. I am open to the idea though. I just refuse to read 8,000 pages of Gary North.



But from your comments, you don’t even seem to be certain the bible condemns the capitalist superstructure. If the bible neither condemns something, nor commands something completely opposite, than how can we condemn that thing, no matter how much we may dislike it?

You did not interact with the point about masters and slaves and how God’s allowance for such a practice is consistent with the notions you are putting forward. 



> Thats a good question for a Capitalist who needs it to justify its use, Scripturally speaking. I asked that earlier. I wanted someone to show me that surplus labor was biblical.



My point was, I don’t see that the bible even supports the definition of surplus labour as Marx defines it. God has ordained some men as masters and others as servants. Servants are entitled to fair treatment, but I don’t see anywhere God gives them a right to demand a ‘fair share’ of the profits from their masters. Again, God did not even think it amiss for a master to own his slaves completely, which makes arguments about who owns their ‘surplus capital’ somewhat irrelevant, as I see it. 

_Exodus 21:2-5 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. * If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:* _

God has such a high view of the rights of masters he did not even think a woman getting married broke the rights her master had over her. He required her husband to choose between his freedom and staying with his family. Note, even the _children_ are the master's. What in the world would God think about someone who wanted to argue about his 'surplus capital'?

_Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money._

If a master was to go to far in disciplining a servant (even a female one) and that servant was to die, God did not consider the master guilty worthy, for as the text says, the servant is the master’s money or property. As I understand the text, the one day stipulation is to show that it was truly an act of discipline and not a malicious murder attempt, since if it was (ie the master really wanted to kill), the servant would not have survived a day.



> Well, my first inclination is to say $25. No, I got it. The worker should be payed $24.97. That way the Capitalist makes .03 surplus labor. That seems fair, right?



Well, why should not the master earn $5, $10 or even more worth of surplus capital, so long as the worker (or servant, which is the bible term) is paid enough to feed and shelter himself? If the servant was not happy with the terms of his employer, why doesn’t he go and set up his own business so he can claim the full $25? Most probably he lacks the tools to produce the item, the reputation or distribution networks to sell it, or other resources needed for its production. Or, as I think you are getting at, because the employer owns the means of production while the worker doesn’t. Hence the employer profits because of his control of the means of production. While this may be wrong from Marx’ point of view, does the bible agree? As I said already, God made rich and poor, and he made masters and servants. Just has he ordained kings over citizens, husbands over wives and parents over children, by his providence, he gave some men the capability and resources to be masters, while denying that to others.


----------



## B.J. (May 15, 2007)

Mark,
Thanks for the insight. It is very thought provoking. I am in process with these things and need to read some more on it.


Thanks,
B.J.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 15, 2007)

Which school had the Marxist professors?


----------



## Puritanhead (May 15, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> Which school had the Marxist professors?


 I used to argue with a Marxist professor in front of the whole class and bring his naive insistence that Lenin and Stalin betrayed Marx and wasn't true communism into ill repute. Students should be insubordinate to professors that preach such tripe and garbage. If it were all to do over, I would be even more abrasive and confrontational. Ideas have consequences. Any serious effort to implement Marx's political program will yield the same bloodletting and human misery. It's an ideology at odds with human experience and nature.

Why is it Marxism died in Russia and the Ukraine, but is still alive and kicking on American college campuses? A few years ago, Duke Univ. was revealed as having some of the highest per capita concentrations of avowed Marxist professors in the United States. There is a littler irony in someone making $65-110k year, driving a late model sedan, and ranting about the evils of capitalism. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, nitwits!!!


----------



## B.J. (May 16, 2007)

> Which school had the Marxist professors?



Which ones don't? I was attending Armstrong Atlantic State University here in Savannah, Ga. I had this professor for several philosophy classes.


----------



## B.J. (May 16, 2007)

> I used to argue with a Marxist professor in front of the whole class and bring his naive insistence that Lenin and Stalin betrayed Marx and wasn't true communism into ill repute.



This is the same jargon used by all Neo-Marxist. I suppose by seperating themselves from the horrid acts of Stalin and Lenin, and claiming they weren't true to Marxist doctrines, it leaves them a fighting chance that the "true" revolution is yet to come. Marxist optomism has always fascinated me.

My professor always told me that "true" communism must come out of a Capitalistic society. It can't be forced on a society. It is the natural out working of the dialectical tension between the classes, and it will be the last class struggle in pre-history.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 16, 2007)

B.J. said:


> Which ones don't? I was attending Armstrong Atlantic State University here in Savannah, Ga. I had this professor for several philosophy classes.



I never had any who taught Marxism in this fashion, although one of them joked that he was a Trotskyist. However, he would have had to have gotten completely off subject to really propagate Marxism. Actually I much preferred that professor to some other more conventional liberals I had classes with. But he was also new and had not yet gotten tenure. If/when he does, maybe things will change? 

I only took one rather basic philosophy class. Most of my history and political science profs. were moderates at worst, and this included a Baptist college as well as public universities. Most of them came of age in the 1960's and I know that several of them became more conservative as time went on. One professor of Latin American history revealed that he used to be quite liberal and had previously blamed the US for all of the problems in Latin America but he had become much more conservative in recent years. One exception was a history professor who strongly attacked the veracity of the Bible. I wasn't even a believer then, but I still felt bad about it. He was such a commanding presence that I don't think anyone dared challenge him, especially not in a Civ I class. Whether he was a Marxist, I don't know.


----------



## BrianLanier (May 16, 2007)

B.J. said:


> Mark,
> Thanks for the insight. It is very thought provoking. I am in process with these things and need to read some more on it.
> 
> 
> ...



If you haven't already, you should read Thomas Sowell's book, Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, it is very good. He accurately represents Marx and Engels and offers a great critique at the end. Dr. Greg Bahnsen used a lot of material from this book in some of his lectures on Marxism (both in his philosophy and his political ethics courses).


----------

