Government socialism versus Religious socialism

I've been wanting to write this post for months now, and have gotten around to it.

What is the big difference between Government Socialism (welfare, food stamps, free healthcare, public services) and Religious socialism/Charity care (free food, soup kitchens, religious hospitals, free clothes, gifts of necessities for less fortunate)? One you have to pay towards if you make money, the other it is suggested to tithe a percent of your income and most do (and pay lower taxes for doing it).

Should I even bring up military socialism? Yes, a lot of them risk their lives for the country, and don't get paid much. But, they do get the basics covered (rent/barracks/housing allowance, food, medical care, gyms, air travel,retirement accounts) And the citizens of the country do pay taxes without a choice as to the level of care they get (some great, some not so great).

I'm not claiming that all of these are good perks or ones that people want to take. But, they are there for the most part to help people out and let them focus on other issues in their lives beyond the necessities. What would the nation be like if non-cash benefits were more abundant and available to anyone? Do you think people are more willing to help others locally rather than far away? Would you know anyone who could be helped by this? Should everyone be on their own and get the hundred$ of tax dollars back while people are hurting and dieing? Is there one type that you would want to live under? As to the level of care they get (some great, some not so great).

I'm not claiming that all of these are good perks or ones that people want to take. But, they are there for the most part to help people out and let them focus on other issues in their lives beyond the necessities. What would the nation be like if non-cash benefits were more abundant and available to anyone? Do you think people are more willing to help others locally rather than far away? Would you know anyone who could be helped by this? Should everyone be on their own and some get the hundred$ of tax dollars back while people are hurting and dieing?

 

Three different things, I think. Government socialism is involuntary, religious socialism is voluntary, and military is more contractual (these days).

Voluntary socialism is great; but it neglects people and areas.

 

the view of democratic socialism is hopelessly narrow. the idea behind it, typically, is full employment as a system objective. that results in a very different pattern of distributing resources. provisions made for the poor in that context has nothing to do with the patronizing idea of "charity"---it's what civilized countries do. it's what separates them from capitalist barbarism. for some reason, the united of states has never quite gotten that. maybe because p.t. barnum was right about the place. democratic socialism also involves elections and so on. it's voluntary in the way that the american political order is. it seems de rigueur amongst the red-baiting crowd---perhaps because of the absurd influence of paleo-conservative outfits like the john birch society or perhaps out of ignorance of the non-american world (they come to the same thing in a way)---to conflate democratic socialism and stalinism. which is, to speak in the vernacular for a minute, fucking stupid.

any modern government is a system for resource allocation. if i understand the operative idea of "socialism" in the op, all governments would qualify. but if that's the case, then none would qualify to the extent that it wouldn't distinguish anything. cancelled like things in an equation.

church-based "charity" was already unable to deal with the consequences of capitalist class stratification in the 1850s. it makes no sense at all to have that on the table as an actual option for dealing with the effects of class stratification. but i digress.