@@ponderingspirit depends on your conception of it? Whitehead opposed the Roman Emperor version with power over others, prefering instead the poor galliean who walks by our side
@@cuddywifter8386 Well put! I know Bulgakov is close to Whitehead in many regards. I know Dr. Hart would have issues with process theism, but I'd love for a full blown discussion of that. I'd also like to hear Dr. Hart discuss distributism--I know it's close to mutualist anarchism. I am influenced by the anarchists, and I know Hart is too.
@justchilling704 The core of socialism, going by the uses of its early important thinkers and by popular movements, is worker control over production. Of course, it later became associated with states like the USSR because they used "socialism" to pacify their people, and their enemies called it "socialism" to define an enemy. Later of course, socialism comes to mean a spectrum of state interventionism and redistributism in fundamentally capitalist, liberal forms of statism. However, USSR-style central planning is subject to the same critique as capitalism: the workers are still exploited by a class which controls how the value of working class' surplus is used. Liberal, statist socialism is some compromise between central planning and capitalism--which logically is subject to both sides of the critique.
Today we are under wage/debt slavery, still subject to a master.
@@ponderingspirit depends on your conception of it? Whitehead opposed the Roman Emperor version with power over others, prefering instead the poor galliean who walks by our side
@@cuddywifter8386 Well put! I know Bulgakov is close to Whitehead in many regards. I know Dr. Hart would have issues with process theism, but I'd love for a full blown discussion of that. I'd also like to hear Dr. Hart discuss distributism--I know it's close to mutualist anarchism. I am influenced by the anarchists, and I know Hart is too.
Depends by that logic socialism is slavery.
@@justchilling704 Depends what you mean by socialism?
@justchilling704 The core of socialism, going by the uses of its early important thinkers and by popular movements, is worker control over production. Of course, it later became associated with states like the USSR because they used "socialism" to pacify their people, and their enemies called it "socialism" to define an enemy.
Later of course, socialism comes to mean a spectrum of state interventionism and redistributism in fundamentally capitalist, liberal forms of statism.
However, USSR-style central planning is subject to the same critique as capitalism: the workers are still exploited by a class which controls how the value of working class' surplus is used. Liberal, statist socialism is some compromise between central planning and capitalism--which logically is subject to both sides of the critique.
Dude, what are you talking about? There was no slavery during the middle ages. It was replaced with serfdom.
Dude, you’re such a good Christian that you can’t even stop overeating.
He actually lost weight.
@@justchilling704 lol