In terms of the American elections. Trump stands for traditional moral values and Hillary stands for socialism and as far as I am concerned that is unjust and that settles the issue.
There is not a way to learn one page of Gemara and come away with any kind of socialism. Theft is theft.
This however does not answer the the problem of abuse of power which seems to be the motivating factor for socialists that are sincere.
Another point is that during the 1800's and early 1900's that most promising and convincing doctrine was that of Socialism, so it was natural for people to be convinced by the arguments. What is different today is that Socialism is not longer believable.
You could see this towards the end of the USSR when the books of Marx would sit in bookstores with thick layers of dust over them. No one that actually lived in a socialist society had any confidence that that system was just in any sense.
This does however open new horizons. If we consider that the major motivating factor for socialism was "Leshem Shamayim"--for the sake of Heaven and that what was wrong was simply that it does not reflect reality then is there a better system? If we look at all the alternatives that people came up with it seems to me that while no system is perfect, I still think the basic approach of the Constitution of the USA is about the best thing out there as far as the structuring of a moral decent society--as long as there is a Torah ethics that underlies it.
I think it makes some sense to go into some detail about what I mean here. I see Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, etc. as mainly trying to come up with alternatives to Torah Ethics. The reason was abuses that were part of European society. So it was natural to try to come up with alternatives. This same motivation is what lies at the core of people that go along with these systems. That is judge on the scales of merit. You do not need to assume the underlying motivation of the socialism is hatred of the rich and the desire to find a rational in order to take away from them their money.
So I try to defend the Law of Moses as being the best system [that is the Oral and Written Law] and instead of ignoring the abuses I try to find ways of correcting the abuses --instead of throwing out the whole system as some people want to do.
I just do not think any kind of Marxism is very good. I think it is inherently violent. Oleg Penkovsky revealed that Krushev was actually planning on raining down a barrage of nuclear missiles on the USA until a strong reaction from Kennedy stopped him.
[It was by the U-2 and Penkovsky that the SS-4 was identified and then the S-5]
The Ultra Religious approach also seems very problematic. My feeling is the best thing is the Litvak Yeshiva approach which is basically an emphasis on moral values and learning Torah together. They might not put it in that way but that is in fact how it comes out.
There is not a way to learn one page of Gemara and come away with any kind of socialism. Theft is theft.
This however does not answer the the problem of abuse of power which seems to be the motivating factor for socialists that are sincere.
Another point is that during the 1800's and early 1900's that most promising and convincing doctrine was that of Socialism, so it was natural for people to be convinced by the arguments. What is different today is that Socialism is not longer believable.
You could see this towards the end of the USSR when the books of Marx would sit in bookstores with thick layers of dust over them. No one that actually lived in a socialist society had any confidence that that system was just in any sense.
This does however open new horizons. If we consider that the major motivating factor for socialism was "Leshem Shamayim"--for the sake of Heaven and that what was wrong was simply that it does not reflect reality then is there a better system? If we look at all the alternatives that people came up with it seems to me that while no system is perfect, I still think the basic approach of the Constitution of the USA is about the best thing out there as far as the structuring of a moral decent society--as long as there is a Torah ethics that underlies it.
I think it makes some sense to go into some detail about what I mean here. I see Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, etc. as mainly trying to come up with alternatives to Torah Ethics. The reason was abuses that were part of European society. So it was natural to try to come up with alternatives. This same motivation is what lies at the core of people that go along with these systems. That is judge on the scales of merit. You do not need to assume the underlying motivation of the socialism is hatred of the rich and the desire to find a rational in order to take away from them their money.
So I try to defend the Law of Moses as being the best system [that is the Oral and Written Law] and instead of ignoring the abuses I try to find ways of correcting the abuses --instead of throwing out the whole system as some people want to do.
I just do not think any kind of Marxism is very good. I think it is inherently violent. Oleg Penkovsky revealed that Krushev was actually planning on raining down a barrage of nuclear missiles on the USA until a strong reaction from Kennedy stopped him.
[It was by the U-2 and Penkovsky that the SS-4 was identified and then the S-5]
The Ultra Religious approach also seems very problematic. My feeling is the best thing is the Litvak Yeshiva approach which is basically an emphasis on moral values and learning Torah together. They might not put it in that way but that is in fact how it comes out.
