What if Moses were a Marxist?

[RamistThomist]

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]

Interesting observation.

 

[Puritanhead]

Exodus 20



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.

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]

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Exodus 20



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Exodus 20



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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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."

perfect communism?

I've gone down that route before and refered to the Pentecostal church...

You pinko liberation theologian.

No. Communism presupposes godlessness.

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

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?

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?

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Puritanhead]

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]

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.]

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.]

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]

Exodus 20



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.

Is theft limited to real estate?

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

 

[smhbbag]

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.]

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.