Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[Scott_Waddell]

No True Scotsman fallacy

 

[Robert_Sock]

Resources need to be tapped into. In order to be efficient in this endeavor, capital is needed (oil, hard-rock mining, irrigation, railroads). Resources are not uniform in their distribution. People in the middle of the Sahara cannot take advantage of the fisheries in Senegal. Lots of grazing land is available in north Africa (northern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia). However, farther east is Libya and Egypt that have very little grazing land. The Negev Desert in Israel has few resources for the support of humanity, but in the North of the country there is Galilee. How does one enable the people of the Negev to be as prosperous as those in Galilee?

This is why governments and large corporations need to invest in people. It will take aid to get things developed to the point that the people become self-sufficient, but the rewards can be great in that these people can eventually add to the economy and perhaps even add to the development of technology.

Starvation and poverty are one end of the economic spectrum. In most cases, these are the result of people electing to stay in their poor villages rather than moving to where economic opportunity lies. Why does one insist in living in a poor region when prosperity can be seen in the distance? Mexico is a case in point. Mexicans can see prosperity across the border and those who are adventurous enough migrate there. Those who are tied to their village or family choose to stay in poverty. This is seen in India and China, where huge numbers of people are abandoning their villages and moving to the cities. It makes sense: If you can do better elsewhere, move there.

It sounds like you’re trying to blame the victim. As Christians, we must engage in true brotherly love, and help all of the poor regardless of location.

LOVE!

 

[nmgauss]

This is why governments and large corporations need to invest in people. It will take aid to get things developed to the point that the people become self-sufficient, but the rewards can be great in that these people can eventually add to the economy and perhaps even add to the development of technology.

It sounds like you’re trying to blame the victim. As Christians, we must engage in true brotherly love, and help all of the poor regardless of location.
LOVE!

Governments need money. Where does this money come from? Profits. How does investing in people create profits when they are not the means of production? Also, why would any organization want to invest in a politically unstable region when the likelihood of losing the investment is high? Look what happened to all the investments poured into Cuba before Castro confiscated them?

Victims have themselves to blame. They could better themselves if they really knew how to do it. There are wonderful programs in Kenya featured in the news that teach people how to manage their resources. Animals are being killed by poachers, but more money could be brought in by encouraging tourism of animal lovers. Show how this is better than killing animals.

 

[minkymurph]

Minkymurph:
Capitalism encourages the accumulation of wealth to invest in the means of production so that the poor will have more jobs to create more wealth for the wealthy so that they can employ more people.

In theory yes, but in practice no. In practice individuals accumulate wealth for their own benefit and not that of others. They may want to create jobs and more wealth for the poor but as you say, their motive is not out of concern for the poor but to make themselves richer.

On the other hand, socialism encourages transfer payments from the wealthy to the poor (i.e. confiscation) even before it can be invested in the means of production. Thus the poor receive more money than their productivity warrants. How does this help to invest in the means of production so that more jobs can be created.

I see your point about confiscation. It cannot be deemed just to transfer money from the rich just because they are rich to the poor simply because they are poor. But, what you say about the poor is a sweeping generalization.

My first point is many rich are unproductive and many poor are very productive.
My second point is if the model we adapt to society is reward for productivity, how is the productivity of an individual or group of individuals to be measured?

Transfer payments are confiscatory and discourage economic growth. Capitalism encourages economic growth through the incentive of profit which can then be plowed back into further enhancing the means of production.

There is no doubt that a thriving economy is a central feature of good society. I have no difficulty with capitalism encouraging economic growth. As I said in another post, even Lenin realized that and under NEP, which was a limited form of capitalism the economy was recovering. Then he died, Stalin took over, abolished NEP and that was that.

But, humanitarianism is not all about making people productive and creating wealth. It is certainly a factor, but not the only one and capitalism’s over-emphasis on wealth and productivity which eclipses humanitarianism.

 

[holyreyes]

What is distributism?

Someone posted this link about Distributism and I am reposting to help answer your question. >>>> distributistreview.com/mag/test-2/

 

[holyreyes]

Here’s what the Church basically thinks about the sharing of resources throughout the world:

CAFOD and Catholic Social Teaching (CST)

CST is founded in scripture and includes statements and letters written by popes and bishops. It shows how Catholic faith can guide our responses to modern day issues.

Our world so often seems ruled by greed and corruption. But CST undermines self-interest. Gaudium et Spes #69 states that “God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples…goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.” In even more strident terms, it reminds us to “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him”. We have a clear duty actively to share resources and strive for justice for our brothers and sisters. Neutrality is not enough.

Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio quotes St Ambrose: “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his…The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.”

This vision is key to CST and to our work. Since we believe each person is made in the image and likeness of God and has inherent dignity, we work with those living in poverty to have access to food, water, housing and other basic amenities which many of us can often take for granted.

cafod.org.uk/About-Us/CAFOD-Catholicism

Whenever I speak of socialism, this is what I mean. My using the word socialism was probably errant.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Governments need money. Where does this money come from? Profits. How does investing in people create profits when they are not the means of production? Also, why would any organization want to invest in a politically unstable region when the likelihood of losing the investment is high? Look what happened to all the investments poured into Cuba before Castro confiscated them?

The initial giving has to be done for humanitarian concerns–LOVE! I doubt very much that capitalism is well suited for the task.

Victims have themselves to blame. They could better themselves if they really knew how to do it. There are wonderful programs in Kenya featured in the news that teach people how to manage their resources. Animals are being killed by poachers, but more money could be brought in by encouraging tourism of animal lovers. Show how this is better than killing animals.

Why would they need to manage their resources when they do not have any in which they can manage?

“Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered.”
~ Proverbs 21:13

 

[nmgauss]

In theory yes, but in practice no. In practice individuals accumulate wealth for their own benefit and not that of others. They may want to create jobs and more wealth for the poor but as you say, their motive is not out of concern for the poor but to make themselves richer.

It is true that the old-style rich in Ireland that confiscated land and diverted the profits to England contributed little to the local economy. But in America, John Jacob Astor, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Leland Stanford, Henry Ford and Bill Gates were and are huge philanthropists. Their money was and is a huge asset to the world.

I see your point about confiscation. It cannot be deemed just to transfer money from the rich just because they are rich to the poor simply because they are poor. But, what you say about the poor is a sweeping generalization.

If some of the poor became permanently better off after receiving aid, that would be justified. But many just have more children, and fathers simply abandon their families knowing that they don’t have to support them any more. Studies have shown that much of the breakup of families we see today was caused by the Welfare State. Much aid is diverted to new elective burdens rather than using that money to better themselves. Being appreciative of aid means giving something back in return. Alcoholics simply buy more alcohol. Narcotics users simply buy more narcotics. Junk food diabetics simply buy more junk food and continue being diabetics.

My first point is many rich are unproductive and many poor are very productive.
My second point is if the model we adapt to society is reward for productivity, how is the productivity of an individual or group of individuals to be measured?

Productivity is measured by the money it brings in. A farmer with ten acres is not as productive as one with twenty acres, because he devotes more time and effort per acre on a small farm than on a large one. Economies of scale are in operation here.

But, humanitarianism is not all about making people productive and creating wealth. It is certainly a factor, but not the only one and capitalism’s over-emphasis on wealth and productivity which eclipses humanitarianism.

Humanitarianism requires excess resources. Without excess resources, humanitarianism is impossible.

 

[Tzimisce]

I strongly sense that people will naturally embrace a deeper brotherly LOVE if primed with empathy and love that can easily be planted from within the mass media.

…so it’s okay to try to control people’s thoughts?

I think there’s no greater evil than manipulation.

I also sense that deeper loving people will gravitate toward socialism. It’s just a matter of time before these things get implemented.

So Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adoph Hitler are deeper loving people?

Beware: the anti-Christ is a being that will bring the world together with a message of love and hope for all people.

 

[Tzimisce]

Beware Robert Sock: you’re filled with a lot of Pride.

That’s the sin that cause Lucifer to fall.

 

[nmgauss]

The initial giving has to be done for humanitarian concerns–LOVE! I doubt very much that capitalism is well suited for the task

.
LOVE goes both ways. People receiving LOVE are expected to LOVE in return. Otherwise it becomes a one-way flow. LOVING poor do not take advantage of aid and consume it without doing anything in return.

Why would they need to manage their resources when they do not have any in which they can manage?

If you have no resources you die. A wild animal that is hunted is a resource. A wild plant used as food is a resource. The only places where there are no resources are in the middle of the Sahara, at the bottom of the ocean, and at the South Pole.

 

[Brigid34]

Holyreyes, thank you for the link - it adds to my knowledge of distributism.

nmgauss and Ridgerunner - thanks again for your explanations. I appreciate them.

 

[Robert_Sock]

.
LOVE goes both ways. People receiving LOVE are expected to LOVE in return. Otherwise it becomes a one-way flow. LOVING poor do not take advantage of aid and consume it without doing anything in return.

When Christ was dying on the cross He chose to love those who were crucifying Him by telling our Heavenly Father to forgive them, for they know not what they are doing. If we are to be Christlike, we must show LOVE, even to those who persecute us.

If you have no resources you die. A wild animal that is hunted is a resource. A wild plant used as food is a resource. The only places where there are no resources are in the middle of the Sahara, at the bottom of the ocean, and at the South Pole.

Yes, but teaching these people how to manage their scarce resources would be all for not since its common sense that they already possess. What these people need are a broad range of resources, meant to meet their basic needs. With the right resources and guidance, these people can then begin to be self-sufficient.

 

[nmgauss]

When Christ was dying on the cross He chose to love those who were crucifying Him by telling our Heavenly Father to forgive them, for they know not what they are doing. If we are to be Christlike, we must show LOVE, even to those who persecute us.

How about people who are worse off after receiving our aid? If they waste it or throw it back in our faces, how is that helping anybody? If you give an alcoholic money, and he buys more alcohol and dies from too much alcohol, how is that helping him? The same goes for a narcotics addict.

Yes, but teaching these people how to manage their scarce resources would be all for not since its common sense that they already possess. What these people need are a broad range of resources, meant to meet their basic needs. With the right resources and guidance, these people can then begin to be self-sufficient.

What is included in a broad range of resources? Nomads need more grass, that is all. Cattle herders need more fodder, that is all. Rice farmers need more lowland for growing rice, that is all. What more do you have in mind? Now if each of these people had smaller families, would that help?

A recent movie, “The Story of the Weeping Camel”, takes place in a small group of camel herders in Mongolia. The stars are the actual people. They are happy although poor. Why would anyone want to change them?

Of course teaching nomads to be farmers would probably improve their lives; this was tried with the Apaches in the American Southwest and it failed miserably among some clans. But it is like getting Gypsies to work for a living instead of scrounging. Tuaregs in Africa raid passing caravans, do they need more caravans?

 

[freeRadical]

All you did was list a bunch of dictatorships who failed miserably; they never even thought of implanting LOVE within society. I’m in no way promoting societies governed by dictatorships or promotes atheism.

LOVE!

Socialism always ends in dictatorship or psuedo-dictatorship. History has shown this to be true.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Socialism always ends in dictatorship or psuedo-dictatorship. History has shown this to be true.

This is certainly true based on history, but that in no way suggests that it must always be that way.

 

[freeRadical]

This is certainly true based on history, but that in no way suggests that it must always be that way.

Actually it does suggest that it will always be that way. That old adage by Lord Acton has proven to be true time and time again, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

 

[holyreyes]

Holyreyes, thank you for the link - it adds to my knowledge of distributism.

nmgauss and Ridgerunner - thanks again for your explanations. I appreciate them.

You are welcome!

 

[minkymurph]

It is true that the old-style rich in Ireland that confiscated land and diverted the profits to England contributed little to the local economy. But in America, John Jacob Astor, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Leland Stanford, Henry Ford and Bill Gates were and are huge philanthropists. Their money was and is a huge asset to the world.

I don’t dispute there are many wealthy people have used their wealth to enrich society. I have a lot of respect for the self-made man in this regard. In my experience the self-made if often more than willing to give the small man a helping hand more than those born into money because they know its tough.

If some of the poor became permanently better off after receiving aid, that would be justified.

I agree. That to me is the point of aid. Admittedly in the UK it has been abused so they cut back on welfare. That and austerity. The problem is those who need aid the most are hardest hit because they are more honest. The abusers, we call them the ‘pyjama people’ continue to receive because they have made a career out of it and it does cause resentment.

But many just have more children, and fathers simply abandon their families knowing that they don’t have to support them any more. Studies have shown that much of the breakup of families we see today was caused by the Welfare State.

That is the stereotypical image of those on welfare. It’s not untrue, and may be a factor in the equation and stereotypes are built on realities, but then exaggerated. I don’t think you can lay think you can lay the blame of the social problems you mention solely on the welfare state. It is more complex than that.

One of the problems we had in the UK was people were better off on welfare than working because wages were so low, so they had no incentive. Certainly the government could cut off their welfare to increase the incentive by the stick rather than the carrot, but if there is a serious shortage of employment, which is the situation in the UK a present, the consequence is not more productive and autonomous people, but more dependency and poverty. I suppose it could be argued at least they are not dependent on the Welfare State, but can that be called humanitarian?

Much aid is diverted to new elective burdens rather than using that money to better themselves. Being appreciative of aid means giving something back in return. Alcoholics simply buy more alcohol. Narcotics users simply buy more narcotics. Junk food diabetics simply buy more junk food and continue being diabetics.

I agree welfare should be used to enable people to better themselves and I agree they should give something back in return. But, alcoholism is not limited to the unemployed. Recently a the main hospital in Belfast was forced to declare a major incident due to the number of young people scraped off the pavement because of alcohol. There was some big DJ in Belfast and over 100 young people ended up in hospital, many from good homes. The first thing many people said is where do they get the money to drink to that extent? They have also called for pubs and clubs to be more responsible. They have not been. They have these ‘happy hours’ and young people are buying 10 shots at a time and knocking them back while the drink is cheap. One guy drowned because the night club he was in was beside a river. The government are now talking about what action they should take. Do you think the government should do something? Or should they not interfere in how the pubs and clubs run their business? You could argue they should be responsible, but the fact is they are not being responsible. The motive? Profit.

I’ve never met a drug dealer who needs welfare, nor one who wants to work, and there are people who are more than happy to sell junk food for profit.

Productivity is measured by the money it brings in. A farmer with ten acres is not as productive as one with twenty acres, because he devotes more time and effort per acre on a small farm than on a large one. Economies of scale are in operation here.

I think that is a mercenary way to measure productivity. The more you own the more ‘productive’ you are deemed to be? The rich are more ‘productive’ than the poor simply because they own more? Can we deem a society a humanitarian society if it measures the productivity of individuals in the manner you suggest?

Humanitarianism requires excess resources. Without excess resources, humanitarianism is impossible.

I agree. The issue then is what is the most humanitarian way to distribute the excess?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Actually it does suggest that it will always be that way. That old adage by Lord Acton has proven to be true time and time again, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

Excuse me, but you would never make it as a researcher. You simply can’t jump from historical facts involving dictatorships within socialism to a conclusion saying that socialism must therefore always lead to dictatorships. The sun rises and it sets each and every day of our lives, but we dare not think that it will always be so because some day the sun will die.

LOVE!