False dichotomies in politics

[PeteR]

Quick note: I agree monarchies can have many problems, as we were warned about in scripture. I just see democracy as capable of even greater evil.

I agree regarding tribalism being the better form of government.
However, consider Abraham's tribe. It contained his descendents, and those he had purchased - slaves, or you could say serfs.
And tribalism, within the tride, is basically communism. Everything is owned by the chief for the benefit of the tribe, everyone works as they are able and receives what they require. But this is a GOOD communism, because it is at a small enough level to actually be motivated by love, and be fair and efficient.
Tribalism in a nomadic society evolves to feudalism when people have fixed abodes - now the tribal head owns the land (as Abraham owned all the tribe's assets), everyone works for him, and gets what they need. We now label those people who are not free to leave the tribe as "serfs", and the chief gets called a "lord". But the change in name doesn't mean they're mistreated (that depends on the godliness of their ruler).
And when tribes form alliances for common protection, and appoint one tribal leader to head the alliance, you end up with a monarchy. But a monarchy that is limited in its power, because it relies on the support of tribal leaders / feudal lords, who can withdraw their support and declare allegience to the neighbouring king the moment the first one becomes too oppressive. This system therefore provides natural checks on the power of a monarch.
So I'm actually agreeing about tribalism. I'm just looking at it from a different angle.

We've got to remember that we've been subjected to anti-monarchy pro-democracy propaganda for our entire lives through our education, with the worst examples being pulled out as examples of why democracy is better. But that's also because the gory bits are the interesting ones that end up in the history books. You don't hear much about the kind lord whose subjects all loved him, who avoided going to war, because that's boring.

Excellent thoughts.. had not considered the tribal/family aspect as 'loving communism', but, it is.

The elders/patriarchs should, by definition, be looking out for the welfare of the whole and setting course that is multigenerational for the benefit of the family. And, by selecting the heirs into whose hands the leadership falls (think Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Solomon, etc, none as firstborn), the patriarchs can help insure the system is perpetuated justly.

The fly in the ointment is that man is sinful, therefore, every system will inevitably fail, thus the need for checks and balance. That we need Messiah at the helm, is obvious.

 

[rockfox]

Excellent thoughts.. had not considered the tribal/family aspect as 'loving communism', but, it is.

There aren't hard and fast definitions for communism and socialism, and a wide variety of practices. We tend to have an impression governed by the worst examples. Nor even would I say FollowingHim's definition of tribalism is universal; not all tribes see the chief as the owner of everything the people of the tribe have control of.

For example, anti-trust law and tariffs are considered by some to be a positive expression of socialism; namely, namely in that you're compromising blind profit motive of capitalism for the greater good of the society. And while the extreme libertarians hate anti-trust law, they are actually necessary for the preservation of free markets (see Price's law / the Pareto Principle). So too are trade controls necessary if you don't want your country turned into a corporate colony dependent on foreigners for their existence.

 

[Mojo]

The fly in the ointment is that man is sinful, therefore, every system will inevitably fail, thus the need for checks and balance. That we need Messiah at the helm, is obvious.

Yes! I don't have too much discretionary time lately to go too deep into this stuff, but I think this is a point we can all agree on.

No system is perfect, and to rely on the benevolence of a single ruler is really a crapshoot.

All events are leading to the eventual rule of Yeshua, but I don't like the idea of throwing up our hands and feeling like all is lost. I may be a Pollyanna but I think we've still got some life left in America, and it's got some redeeming qualities still.

 

[PeteR]

There aren't hard and fast definitions for communism and socialism, and a wide variety of practices. We tend to have an impression governed by the worst examples.

Actually, no. I've always thought that the Acts 2 model to be a pretty Biblical form, but... sin is the problem, therefore the need for checks and balances inherent in representative democracy.

And, @Mojo , I'm not fatalistic or recommending throwing in the towel, but we do need to have a kingdom focus with present government, while important, not being the priority.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The elders/patriarchs should, by definition, be looking out for the welfare of the whole and setting course that is multigenerational for the benefit of the family. And, by selecting the heirs into whose hands the leadership falls (think Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Solomon, etc, none as firstborn), the patriarchs can help insure the system is perpetuated justly.

Now this is very interesting. Just had a thought about Jacobs stolen birthright in comparison to Josephs birthright.
He was the firstborn of Rachel though 7th or 8th in line from the official wives. God saw fit to give the birthright to Joseph thru legitimate channels. It would have been interesting to see how God had planned to give the birthright to Jacob before he listened to his momma.

 

[PeteR]

Now this is very interesting. Just had a thought about Jacobs stolen birthright in comparison to Josephs birthright.
He was the firstborn of Rachel though 7th or 8th in line from the official wives. God saw fit to give the birthright to Joseph thru legitimate channels. It would have been interesting to see how God had planned to give the birthright to Jacob before he listened to his momma.

Either way, Yah's purpose accomplished as prophesied, but could have been much less painful...

 

[FollowingHim]

Excellent thoughts.. had not considered the tribal/family aspect as 'loving communism', but, it is.

Socialism and capitalism are both good, normal and necessary parts of life. Socialism is how a healthy family relates to each other. Capitalism is how a family fairly relates to those outside the family. Both only ever cause problems when they are applied in the wrong setting - socialism at the level of the State, or capitalism in the family (e.g. kids refusing to do chores without payment).

 

[FollowingHim]

We're just talking about how leaders are chosen. In a democracy it is by vote, that doesn't necessarily imply tyranny. It does imply accountability to the people though. Whereas monarch's often have some degree of absolute rule and are not accountable barring violence.

The difference is that people are very reluctant to revolt against democratic governments, because they don't recognise their treatment as tyranny, and the few that do recognise it preserve a naive hope that they might be able to vote out the tyranny. But the monarch loses an entire nation if he just puts a tax on tea. This is not logical, because it comes back to emotion and psychology, not mathematics. But it's very real.

So all the mass murders of the 20th century from dictators? Might as well lay that at the feet of monarchy (dictator by another name).

Most have been communists, not monarchs. Don't mix that up. The Russian Tsar was a monarch with faults, but the mass murder didn't begin until the communists took over.

 

[rockfox]

Most have been communists, not monarchs. Don't mix that up.

Most have been absolute rulers. What is a monarch but an absolute ruler with hereditary succession?

Capitalism is how a family fairly relates to those outside the family

Not really. There are non-market based economic and social systems. And modern Corporate Capitalism isn't the only form of market based economy.

 

[FollowingHim]

Most have been absolute rulers. What is a monarch but an absolute ruler with hereditary succession?

There's a major difference. The absolute ruler of a communist state is the leader of a party that claims to represent the people. Everything he does is "for the benefit of the people". He'll probably believe this himself even if it isn't true, and use substantial propaganda to convince everyone else that it's the case also.

While a monarch is an absolute ruler who represents himself. He might have absolute power on paper - but it is portrayed and perceived very differently. He has less interest in messing with everybody's lives because he isn't trying to help them as much, and the populace have a lower threshold for his interference before they revolt (back to the tea tax example).

It is the portrayal of the ruler / party / government's actions as all being "for the good of the people" that is the commonality between democracy and communism, and the source of their psychological power over the people, which allows them to ultimately become more oppressive than any monarch ever could even if they start with good intentions.

 

[rockfox]

There's a major difference. The absolute ruler of a communist state is the leader of a party that claims to represent the people. Everything he does is "for the benefit of the people". He'll probably believe this himself even if it isn't true, and use substantial propaganda to convince everyone else that it's the case also.

While a monarch is an absolute ruler who represents himself. He might have absolute power on paper - but it is portrayed and perceived very differently. He has less interest in messing with everybody's lives because he isn't trying to help them as much, and the populace have a lower threshold for his interference before they revolt (back to the tea tax example).

It is the portrayal of the ruler / party / government's actions as all being "for the good of the people" that is the commonality between democracy and communism, and the source of their psychological power over the people, which allows them to ultimately become more oppressive than any monarch ever could even if they start with good intentions.

Good point. Except that many kings claimed to rule by divine right. You think that ruling 'for the people' is a more powerful excuse?

 

[FollowingHim]

Yes. Saying "God says I'm your tyrant" is just an assertion of power, and just a meaningless boast to anyone who disagrees. But saying "I represent the people" is far more powerful, because by opposing the tyrant you are then supposedly opposing society as a whole.

 

[rockfox]

Yes. Saying "God says I'm your tyrant" is just an assertion of power, and just a meaningless boast to anyone who disagrees.

Not in their context though. During the times of the monarchs not only was the populous very religious, they were beholden to a church which supported the divine right of kings. Remember these were the same peoples who'd answer the call of the Pope to march off to Jerusalem on a Crusade. To them, what would they care about some rich man's or aristocrats claim to 'represent' them? Different class. Different ideas. Different goals. You can probably throw in some late pagan ideas about victory in battle reflecting the power/truth of the victor's god.

Now in our modern context, you're right. We've lost our faith, the power of the RCC was broke. Today representation of the people appeals more to us, and to our vanity.

But even here, no one in the heartland felt Obama represented us. Or that he was a just leader. "just a meaningless boast to anyone who disagrees" would equally apply to him if he claimed to represent the will of the people. It wasn't ideas and justifications that kept people from rebelling, but the overwhelming power of the state and the peoples belief that the ballot box would work to change things in 4 years. Which it, more or less, did. The main things preventing real change in our country the last 60 years haven't been an unwillingness to rebel, but the immense influence of the media and public schools combined with the deep state and corporate compromise of politicians and political parties. Not to mention widespread voter fraud in democratically controlled districts. We've been propagandized to think we're free when we're actually slaves.

That's probably going to change though. Not because we've gained faith in God and monarchy, or because we've lost faith in the idea of representation. But because changing demographics will make it clear that native born Americans have been permanently disenfranchised. The battle of ideas will no longer matter, it will be impossible to gain effective representation through the ballot box.

Now, that a republican system can be co-opted as ours has through propaganda and foreign elements is a valid argument against it. Yet the same is equally true of the monarchies, which were often composed of foreign warrior classes. No system is perfect.