If you contend that "Nobody who actually defends 'socialism' agrees that German National Socialism or Soviet Socialism  is 'real socialism,'" fine. Define socialism. I gave my definitions:

I define "socialism" as an economic system in which consumers are forbidden from buying goods and services of their choice, and producers are prohibited from selling goods and services of their choice, and from hiring Smith as a worker if Smith is willing to work for less than Jones is willing to work. Under "socialism," violators of these prohibitions will hear a knock on their door in the middle of the night by armed agents of the government who will shoot the violator's dog and take the violator to prison, or kill the violator if the violator resists.

Those who defend "capitalism" define "capitalism" as the economic system which repudiates all initiation of force or threats of violence by the government, by businesses, and by consumers. Capitalism means freedom. Capitalism means consumers are free to buy whatever they want, or sell what they buy. If they can't find what they want to buy, they are free to go into business for themselves and sell products they believe will make them a profit. Capitalism means I have the freedom to get a job by my willingness to work for a lower wage rate than a competing worker.

I see no relevant difference between use of force by socialists and the use of force by fascists.

Those who defend Capitalism oppose any government-corporation nexus. Those who attack Capitalism claim that Capitalism IS a corporate-government nexus. But that is "fascism." Capitalism is Freedom.

Capitalism depends on the moral character of the people. Socialism depends on force, coercion, and threats of violence waged against the majority of the people by an elite party oligarchy. Einstein says below that Capitalism turns into an elite corporate oligopoly, but at least people are free under Capitalism to boycott all corporations. There are no boycotts against the State under Socialism. Boycotts are met with tanks. WalMart doesn't own tanks. Don't shop there if you don't like WalMart. Tell your friends on Facebook not to shop there. There is no Facebook under Socialism. There is only one aisle under Socialism.

Socialism = armed coercion by the State

Capitalism = freedom

Then you need to define "capitalist values" in a way that is compatible with freedom, which is the essential characteristic of capitalism, as defined by those who support and defend capitalism.

I do not accept any definition of "capitalism" which assumes a fraudulent, abusive, or violent foundation. The whole question here is: which system works better: freedom or government compulsion. Use whatever words you want to describe those two alternatives, just be consistent.

Acts 5:4
English Standard Version (ESV)
⁴ While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

"Thou shalt not steal" = "Thou shalt not steal the private property of others."

Exodus 20:17
King James Version (KJV)
 ¹⁷ Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house ... nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

• “And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.” (Acts 2:43-45)

• “And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul: neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed, was his own; but all things were common unto them. And with great power did the apostles give testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord; and great grace was in them all. For neither was there any one needy among them. For as many as were owners of lands or houses, sold them, and brought the price of the things they sold, and laid it down before the feet of the apostles. And distribution was made to every one, according as he had need. And Joseph, who, by the apostles, was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, by interpretation, The son of consolation,) a Levite, a Cyprian born, having land, sold it, and brought the price, and laid it at the feet of the apostles.” (Acts 4:32-37)

It was also not enforced at gunpoint.

I don't care if you give all your stuff away. Don't point a gun at me and give MY stuff away.

That's the difference between Socialism and Christianity.

There is certainly nothing in the New Testament prohibiting Christians from producing MORE wealth to distribute to the needy. That's capitalism.

Ephesians 4:28
King James Version (KJV)
 ²⁸ Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

“Looking at Christianity in the light of these texts, we find ourselves in the presence of a creed whose aim it was to promote communal relationships in society, for it is manifest that in the mind of the Early Christians the Fatherhood of God involved the Brotherhood of man, and vice versa. If men and women were to live together as equals, if they were to share a common life and hold goods in common, they must have in common ideas as well as goods, or there would be no cement to bind them together. In order that common ideas might prevail amongst them, they must acknowledge some supreme authority, some principle of conduct which was above and beyond personal opinion. Above all, they must be fortified in spirit against any temptation to private gain” (A Guildsman’s Interpretation of History by Arthur Penty, p. 35).

Wayne

If I follow Marx correctly. he believed this utopian age would come about through Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) which, it seems to me, does not rule out the possibility that this process would be directed by some kind of benevelent greater power.  Unfortunately, Marx and Engles advocated violent revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat. whereas democratic socialism advocates evolution through education, which is what I support.

If you have no police or apparatus of compulsion in your "socialism," I have no objection. You shouldn't call it "socialism" if there is no State or government police of any kind.

See Fabian socialism for example:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

  The Fabian Society is a British socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary, means. It is best known for its initial ground-breaking work beginning late in the 19th century and continuing up to World War I. The society laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from the decolonisation of the British Empire, especially India.

In your cpitalist system, you cannot support the bugoisie (i.e. capitalists) without opposing rights of working people (i.e., the prolitariat).

First, I don't believe in "rights."

Second, I don't see how capitalists (owners of factories, etc.) deprive workers of their "rights."

This is fundamental and obvious.  (In Psychology, abuse of the rights of others is described as psychopathic.)

 Capitalism really began to emerge after the British Agricultural Revolution of the 1720s, when advances in agriculture meant that fewer people were needed to produce food so many peasants were cast off of the land that they worked. As the feudal system was being ended, previously communal land began to be privatized and the peasants had no title to the land so they became homeless and jobless. This was when wage-labor began to come into more prominent use in the cities, as peasants flooded the cities looking for work. Shortly after, advances in mechanization also took place. As this happened the merchant class evolved into the capitalist class through the building of factories and the employment of workers to produce products directly for them. It was this accumulation of capital by entrepreneurs that gave rise to the term capitalism, though this term did not come into use until the mid 1800s. The principle characteristic of capitalism is that rights to ownership of newly created value were seen as coming from ownership of the tools used to create the value as opposed to the labor used to create the value, as had traditionally been the view.

If land titles were collectivized or redistributed equally among peasants and entrepreneurs, everyone would at first live in the poverty of "self-sufficiency." The more entrepreneurial and acquisitive and hard-working would produce more, sell more, make more money, and buy land from those who would rather eat than own land. Eventually you would have the same situation: landowning entrepreneurs will hire laborers and be richer than the laborers would be if they were self-sufficient on their own land.

The proof is obvious: human beings enjoy a higher standard of living today as laborers than they did in 1720 when they were self-sufficient farmers. There's nothing un-Christian about this as long as it's all voluntary.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/capitalism_wages.htm

Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labor is bestowed.
- Adam Smith; The Wealth of Nations

Wayne,

Here is a paste, but they are my words from my blog:

This same communal Church of Jerusalem, incidentally, was unable to withstand the worldwide famine that occurred during the Roman Emperor Claudius’ reign.  In fact, Christians in other cities, amidst the same famine, had to provide a “stimulus package” to the communal Jerusalem church (Acts 11:27-30).  This is not to assert that communal living was the absolute cause of the Jerusalem Church’s fiscal shortfall.  It is merely to say that their socialist structure was found to be insufficient in times of natural disaster.

http://christiancapitalism.net/was-jesus-a-socialist-2/

I will never claim that the Scriptures command nations to have Capitalist economies.

Islam actually lays out a nation's government within the Koran.  Christianity does not do that.  God inspired the Bible to transcend all political and economic systems (even inside an Islamic nation).  When Christianity is instilled in a nation through the true conversion of its people's hearts, ANY form of economy will get better.  I freely admit that Communist, Socialist, Monarchist and Capitalist nations would all get better through the Christian regeneration of hearts.

When people who are members of the mafia become Christians, they stop being members of the mafia. When people who are Monarchs or socialist dictators become Christians, they stop being archists. When Christianity is instill in a nation, communism, socialism, and monarchism vanish. People are to repent of these things. We are never commanded to repent of capitalism, that is, the non-initiation of force.

The point of Christian Capitalism blog is to give evidence that Capitalism meshed together with the morality of Christian libertarian salvation will form the BEST economic result.  That is, the average wealth for everyone will be higher, they will be much better VOLUNTARY givers, they will be much more fulfilled, and they will be better equipped (theologically AND economically) to evangelize.

I think you would say that "giving" is important to the God of the Bible.  Statistics point out that Christian Capitalists give the most.  (Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Arthur C. Brooks).  Integral to a Christian's sanctification is making a libertarian free choice to spend the money in his pocket on himself or give it to others.  Christians in socialist economies give less than Christians in capitalist economies because they believe the State will now provide.  They are therefore deprived of that transformational personal decision AND the ability to couple that "offering" with the Gospel.

When Christianity is compromised in a Capitalist society, you WILL get greedy persons like Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay.  But statistically, these are insignificant problems.  The much greater problem comes about when major portions of the population stop creating (working) when they think the other half is going to take care of them, and the rest of the population stops creating because it is futile to do so.  This condition is being empirically shown in the country of Greece right now.

I would venture that there is just as much (if not more) greed in secular socialist governments.  These persons just get their wealth through redistribution and graft.

Another problem with the human heart is that it is disposed to reject Jesus Christ and apostate from Him.  Countries can also do this on a national scale.  Of course, God can create any revival He wants, but apostate countries with large central governments cannot be "revived" as easily as countries with limited central governments.  This can be thought of as a type of "spiritual" momentum.  An example of this would being trying to overcome a materialistic public education system that opposes any theistic teaching.  This entity could be so entrenched in power with a powerful union that it actually devises policy instead of following it (sound familiar?).

A side note:  What I DID appreciate about some of the "socialist" countries you listed was their use of educational vouchers.  If we did that in the U.S., the entire face of the culture war would change by dismantling the system we have today.

You have never professed a regenerated heart in any of your writings.  Thus I don't know if you are born-again with socialist convictions or unregenerated and using Christianity to promote Socialism.  But this I do know:  Jesus wasn't Socialist or Capitalist.  He was above it all.  You will not see anywhere in my blog claiming Jesus tells us to be Capitalists.  What I refute is the claim of many that one cannot be coincidently a Capitalist and a Christian.

• Matthew 20:1–16
• Luke 19:12-27
• "occupy till I come"
• Most important, Jesus explicitly prohibits us from being "archists." Socialism and communism are both archist systems.

Ken

Ken@ChristianCapitalism.net

www.ChristianCapitalism.net