Socialism, Christianism and humanism

[coffee]

@lozenge

Why socialism is not more criticized in humanist circles and literature?

There are many aspects that make socialism and Christianism on a par, and that makes socialism not fitted for reaching humanist values, which by itself should raise concern from humanists:

Conflating socialism and Christianity can create a very blurry and confusing paradigm - especially when each is then compared to Humanism. There are some beautiful concepts in Christianity - love thy neighbor, for example that align well within the Humanist perspective. By saying socialism is similar to Christianity and therefore should alarm humanists is too reductive.

@lozenge

Since secular humanism, for it being naturalist and materialist, is antagonistic to both religion and idealism, that poses a problem.

Parts yes, parts no.

@lozenge

(2) Christian religion and socialism all aim at the advent of a perfect world to come in the future (see point (1)). Since secular humanism cares of the here and now, and reject idealism, that poses a problem.

Humanism does not reject a perfect future world. That would be unreasonable.
And so far as I know Humanists do not reject idealism. We present a better definition of what is ideal and we leave out the fictions of myth.

@lozenge

(3) As Christianism, socialism is mainly about virtue signalling, and the virtues in socialism (love, compassion, sharing, etc.) are, not coincidently, the same as Christian values (see point (1)). Since secular humanism is consequentialist, that poses a problem.

Since Humanism is consequentialist, it has no problem with virtue signaling. Caring for the environment. Helping those in need. The consequences of these virtues are compatible with Humanism.

@lozenge

(4) Nor Christian religion neither socialism never ever improved significantly human condition (because both work from people giving resources to them, not from them being able to produce resources), but that never prevented people from still believing it and defending it (maybe because of point (3))

True