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

[TEPO]

because some day the sun will die.

Did you know that all it takes is one molecule of iron to reach the core of a Red Giant and it will simultaneously explode…? And when it explodes, the force at the core is so great that it creates an earth-sized crystal ball, left floating in space like a giant marble forever?

 

[Ridgerunner]

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. LOVE!

It’s not possible to do real scientific analysis of socialism because you can’t set up the necessary experiments.

However, it must be noted that the history of socialism is not very favorable, and the more extreme the level sought or achieved, the more coercion required to do it. Is coercion inherent to socialist experiments? Inasmuch as it always seeks to oblige people to do that which they would not naturally do, it seems so.

 

[minkymurph]

It’s not possible to do real scientific analysis of socialism because you can’t set up the necessary experiments.

However, it must be noted that the history of socialism is not very favorable, and the more extreme the level sought or achieved, the more coercion required to do it. Is coercion inherent to socialist experiments? Inasmuch as it always seeks to oblige people to do that which they would not naturally do, it seems so.

A degree coercion is inherent to socialism, and it can be argued that it seeks to oblige people to do that which they would not naturally do. There are many things we would not naturally do and are coerced to do and as you say, the more extreme the level sought or achieved the more coercion is required to do But personally I’m not a against a bit of coercion if it is done for a good motive and reason.

People do not naturally share, they are taught to share. Then they go out into the big, bad world and find it can be a bad idea.

 

[TEPO]

It’s not possible to do real scientific analysis of socialism because you can’t set up the necessary experiments.

However, it must be noted that the history of socialism is not very favorable, and the more extreme the level sought or achieved, the more coercion required to do it. Is coercion inherent to socialist experiments? Inasmuch as it always seeks to oblige people to do that which they would not naturally do, it seems so.

Agreed.

I’ve heard once that for a truly pure socialist economy to work it must have absolutely zero competition. Also, the same has been said for a communist utopia…

…the only problem with this is that it becomes a cultural inferno -all variations in culture, religion, tradition, etc., must be forgotten, and everything must ‘restart’ from that point onward. It’s absolute progressiveness. Therefore, in order to progress, the first step is to destroy -and to destroy what God permitted to naturally (or supernaturally) occur, without His permission, would be a man-made construct. It’s Humanism again. Hidden like a snake under the sand.

 

[nmgauss]

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!

Much of what we expect to happen is based on probabilities, which are established through past events. Thus, when we drive our car, there is a risk that we will be involved in a traffic accident. This risk is based on past events.

All the examples of socialist states that may have started out as reciprocal (we scratch each others backs because we want to) eventually became mandatory (we each scratch each others backs because we have to) or else they failed. Because the whole system must work according to a plan, that plan is in jeopardy if we decide we don’t want to participate. Therefore, do it or else!

Capitalism is flexible and based on voluntary participation. If you don’t want to participate, you may. It doesn’t hurt the system. It may not work as well, but it certainly does not stop functioning.

And other thing. How does one force LOVE down the throats of people who have no LOVE for anything or anybody? LOVE is an emotion, and emotions are non-negotiable.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Capitalism is flexible and based on voluntary participation. If you don’t want to participate, you may. It doesn’t hurt the system. It may not work as well, but it certainly does not stop functioning.

Capitalism is slavery!!! It’s not really based on voluntary participation, but most of us are forced to participate or become homeless!!!

And other thing. How does one force LOVE down the throats of people who have no LOVE for anything or anybody? LOVE is an emotion, and emotions are non-negotiable.

Deeper meanings of LOVE do not involve an emotion, but our interaction with God and our propensity to chose good over evil.

LOVE needs not be forced on anybody, and if it is, it’s not LOVE. Socialism can use the mass media to plant the seeds of LOVE, and people are perfectly free to accept or reject it. People will naturally gravitate towards LOVE once the shackles of greed, power and prestige are removed.

 

[TEPO]

Capitalism is slavery!!! It’s not really based on voluntary participation, but most of us are forced to participate or become homeless!!!

Deeper meanings of LOVE do not involve an emotion, but our interaction with God and our propensity to chose good over evil.

LOVE needs not be forced on anybody, and if it is, it’s not LOVE. Socialism can use the mass media to plant the seeds of LOVE, and people are perfectly free to accept or reject it. People will naturally gravitate towards LOVE once the shackles of greed, power and prestige are removed.

Robert, what will become of those who reject this communist ideology you promote? What if they try to bring down the system by introducing Capitalism again?

Should they be imprisoned? Or will the history books have all been burned thus erasing any memory of alternative ideas or cultures?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert, what will become of those who reject this communist ideology you promote? What if they try to bring down the system by introducing Capitalism again?

What become of those who reject capitalism within our society? Homelessness! Can’t be more cruel than that!

Nothing happens by chance in our world. Whatever happens, happens for good reason. The script has already been written; all we have to do is follow along.

Faith!

 

[nmgauss]

Capitalism is slavery!!! It’s not really based on voluntary participation, but most of us are forced to participate or become homeless!!!

Nobody is forcing anybody to participate in capitalism. Capitalism is the first economic system in human history. The first ancient cities that were established thousands of years ago were based on capitalism. If you wanted to be a nomad taking your flocks to where the grass was, you did not have to participate.

Deeper meanings of LOVE do not involve an emotion, but our interaction with God and our propensity to chose good over evil.

LOVE is an emotion. That is its definition. The church has used LOVE to attract adherents. That is its modus operandi. Those of us that are not LOVE hungry often elect to go our own way without the church. We are more skeptical of the motives of others than those who are looking for LOVE. We are more sales resistant. LOVE hungry people are more easily swayed by those who are trying to intrude into our inner lives.

LOVE needs not be forced on anybody, and if it is, it’s not LOVE. Socialism can use the mass media to plant the seeds of LOVE, and people are perfectly free to accept or reject it. People will naturally gravitate towards LOVE once the shackles of greed, power and prestige are removed

.

If that is true, why are the people of Ukraine fighting each other. The conflict there is a grass-roots political phenomenon in which LOVE has a subsidiary position.

 

[nmgauss]

It is interesting to compare the main themes of Christianity vs. Judaism.

In Christianity, “Jesus saves” and “Jesus loves you” is the main focus. There is no other obligation than charity to the poor and attending Sunday services. Activism is not in the foreground. Be pious, love your enemies, be charitable to the poor and your life will be complete.

In Judaism, obligation to follow the Law, as stated in the Torah, is the main focus. In other words, one who does not adhere to the Law is not a good Jew. It is obligation, not love that is emphasized. Here doing something constructive is encouraged. There is an old saying, “Don’t just stand there, do something!”

The United States has the largest population of Jews in the world. It has also been fortunate that the greatest achievements in business, music, art, and entertainment have been attained by Jews. Hitler goofed when he kicked out the Jews. They are also the most prosperous segment of U.S. citizens.

There is a lesson here, Christians. Don’t just pray and hope that God will deliver. Do something constructive.

 

[TEPO]

What become of those who reject capitalism within our society? Homelessness! Can’t be more cruel than that!

Nothing happens by chance in our world. Whatever happens, happens for good reason. The script has already been written; all we have to do is follow along.

Faith!

According to your logic, God is evil for he failed humanity for not making us houses. Our ancient ancestors had to find their own shelter -therefore God is not a humanitarian.

Also, according to your logic, it is better to be imprisoned by man than it is to live freely, without the ‘gifts’ of man.

Robert, I cannot follow along with this script. I urge you to abandon your Humanist ideals… Humanism leads to apostasy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

People do not naturally share, they are taught to share.

Not intending to be argumentive but I think people do share naturally, though certainly we are taught to share by many sources. One sees little kids who can’t even talk sharing with other little kids who can’t talk. While I think some of sharing is learned behavior, I think it’s also natural or human beings, who depend very largely on sharing for existence, would likely not have survived as long as we have.

One of the problems with sharing, of course, is voluntariness. Some people do not volunteer to share at all. Most do, though. One shares with one’s spouse, with one’s children, with family members, almost without even thinking about it as “sharing”. It’s massive in scope. People “share” with churches and charities and neighbors and friends, and we do it all the time without coercion.

When, however, authorities coerce sharing, we’re dubious about it, or at least questioning, particularly if we know for a fact that a lot of the “sharing” is not with anyone in need. We are, in effect, told “you must share with “X” or go to jail. But X’s identity is not disclosed to you”. Well, we don’t know X. We don’t know his needs or whether he needs anything. Maybe X is George Soros or Solyndra or Planned Parenthood. We don’t know. So we’re questioning of it, at the very least.

It’s natural that we do so, and we ought to do so.

 

[Ridgerunner]

LOVE is an emotion. That is its definition.

No it isn’t. It’s not an emotion at all, except in common usage. Love is doing that which benefits another for the sake of that other. There might be emotional content to the act, but not necessarily.

 

[minkymurph]

Not intending to be argumentive but I think people do share naturally, though certainly we are taught to share by many sources. One sees little kids who can’t even talk sharing with other little kids who can’t talk. While I think some of sharing is learned behavior, I think it’s also natural or human beings, who depend very largely on sharing for existence, would likely not have survived as long as we have.

But is capitalism not all about individualism and not sharing? This is mine, I don’t have to give you anything, I can if I want to but I don’t have to because I’ve no obligation to look after you? In which case, its unnatural?

One of the problems with sharing, of course, is voluntariness. Some people do not volunteer to share at all. Most do, though. One shares with one’s spouse, with one’s children, with family members, almost without even thinking about it as “sharing”. It’s massive in scope. People “share” with churches and charities and neighbors and friends, and we do it all the time without coercion.

When, however, authorities coerce sharing, we’re dubious about it, or at least questioning, particularly if we know for a fact that a lot of the “sharing” is not with anyone in need. We are, in effect, told “you must share with “X” or go to jail. But X’s identity is not disclosed to you”. Well, we don’t know X. We don’t know his needs or whether he needs anything. Maybe X is George Soros or Solyndra or Planned Parenthood. We don’t know. So we’re questioning of it, at the very least.

It’s natural that we do so, and we ought to do so.

I agree on the being dubious and not sharing with those who are not in genuine need. How many of know us what governments do with our money?

On the other hand, how do we decide who is most in need outside our immediate family, circle of friends and selected charities? What one person deems as ‘in need’ may be different to that of another, and some may not be shared with at all other than by coercion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But is capitalism not all about individualism and not sharing? This is mine, I don’t have to give you anything, I can if I want to but I don’t have to because I’ve no obligation to look after you? In which case, its unnatural?

One of the problems with sharing, of course, is voluntariness. Some people do not volunteer to share at all. Most do, though. One shares with one’s spouse, with one’s children, with family members, almost without even thinking about it as “sharing”. It’s massive in scope. People “share” with churches and charities and neighbors and friends, and we do it all the time without coercion.

I agree on the being dubious and not sharing with those who are not in genuine need. How many of know us what governments do with our money?

On the other hand, how do we decide who is most in need outside our immediate family, circle of friends and selected charities? What one person deems as ‘in need’ may be different to that of another, and some may not be shared with at all other than by coercion.

I never said governmentally-coerced transfer payments are totally bad. But at least in theory, even those transfers are “voluntary” in the sense that we recognize a societal need to do this or that, and act politically to ensure that it gets done. We can usually see that more clearly on a local level. Should I vote for this sales tax increase in order to fund a program for the retarded, perhaps? It is for this reason, among others, that the Church promotes “subsidiarity”; that is, that the most proximate, competent authority ought to be the level at which transfers should be authorized.

But the trend is away from that. As government gets more remote from its citizens, the clarity of purpose and the voluntariness fade out.

Now, there are really only two kinds of coerced payment; that which is politically consented to (for real, not just in theory) and theft. I don’t think any rational person can deny that much of what the government collects really is theft. We have no idea what they’re taking or why. Much of what the government takes goes to things that would not be a generally consented societal purpose, but to garner contributions. In such instances, it’s theft, and no question about it.

 

[nmgauss]

No it isn’t. It’s not an emotion at all, except in common usage. Love is doing that which benefits another for the sake of that other. There might be emotional content to the act, but not necessarily.

LOVE is a noun and a verb. You are referring to the verb form. Here is the definition:
2love verb \ˈləv\
: to feel great affection for (someone) : to feel love for (someone)
: to feel sexual or romantic love for (someone)
: to like or desire (something) very much : to take great pleasure in (something)
lovedlov·ing
Full Definition of LOVE
transitive verb
1: to hold dear : cherish
2
a : to feel a lover’s passion, devotion, or tenderness for
b (1) : caress (2) : to fondle amorously (3) : to copulate with
3
: to like or desire actively : take pleasure in
4
: to thrive in
intransitive verb
: to feel affection or experience desire

Examples of LOVE

She obviously loves her family very much.
You have to love in order to be loved.
He swore that he loved her madly.
She said she could never marry a man she didn’t love.
People loved him for his brashness and talent, his crazy manglings of the English language, his brawling, boyish antics … and I loved him, too, I loved him as much as anyone in the world. —Paul Auster, Granta, Winter 1994

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love

Exception for caressing or copulating, there is nothing that hints at doing something for somebody. It is mostly emotion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

LOVE is a noun and a verb. You are referring to the verb form. Here is the definition:
2love verb \ˈləv\
: to feel great affection for (someone) : to feel love for (someone)
: to feel sexual or romantic love for (someone)
: to like or desire (something) very much : to take great pleasure in (something)
lovedlov·ing
Full Definition of LOVE
transitive verb
1: to hold dear : cherish
2
a : to feel a lover’s passion, devotion, or tenderness for
b (1) : caress (2) : to fondle amorously (3) : to copulate with
3
: to like or desire actively : take pleasure in
4
: to thrive in
intransitive verb
: to feel affection or experience desire

Examples of LOVE

She obviously loves her family very much.
You have to love in order to be loved.
He swore that he loved her madly.
She said she could never marry a man she didn’t love.
People loved him for his brashness and talent, his crazy manglings of the English language, his brawling, boyish antics … and I loved him, too, I loved him as much as anyone in the world. —Paul Auster, Granta, Winter 1994

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love

Exception for caressing or copulating, there is nothing that hints at doing something for somebody. It is mostly emotion.

Inasmuch as you are a self-described secular humanist and I am a Catholic, I would not expect you to understand the word “love” as the Catholic understanding of it is. Many other Christians who get beyond the common usage, hold the same view as I expressed.
princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Love.html

See, also Luke 6:27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you…"

The Catholic Church and its philosophers and theologians do not consult Webster’s Dictionary for their views. So, in a Catholic forum in which many of the participants are knowledgeable of what the Catholic (simply “Christian” for many) understanding of the word is, one cannot simply announce that it’s something else and expect not to be challenged on it.

The difference matters. The Christian challenge to “love one’s enemies” is utterly misunderstood unless one is aware of the proper Christian understanding of the word.
It is not a call to somehow develop an emotional affection for one’s enemies, but to do what is best for them no matter how we may feel about it. The challenge to “do good to those who hate you” is essentially the same in meaning.

 

[nmgauss]

princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Love.html

See, also Luke 6:27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you…"

The difference matters. The Christian challenge to “love one’s enemies” is utterly misunderstood unless one is aware of the proper Christian understanding of the word.
It is not a call to somehow develop an emotional affection for one’s enemies, but to do what is best for them no matter how we may feel about it. The challenge to “do good to those who hate you” is essentially the same in meaning.

If one investigates the psychology of religion, and love is considered, there first has to be a feeling of love and then a demonstration that love is being felt by the giver. It is the demonstration of love that confuses you. To love is to have an emotional state. To show love is a demonstration of your emotion.

To give to the poor because someone tells you to do so or face the consequences (socialism or taxation), the effect is the same as if you did it from a standpoint of love. Either way, alms to the poor will result in benefits to them.

 

[Robert_Sock]

If one investigates the psychology of religion, and love is considered, there first has to be a feeling of love and then a demonstration that love is being felt by the giver. It is the demonstration of love that confuses you. To love is to have an emotional state. To show love is a demonstration of your emotion.

Do you have a source?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Can you see the other side? I have already said that even Lenin realized the need for capitalism for the sake of the economy.

Then Lenin should have stopped right there and accepted true pure Capitalism as the best economic system…rather than making everyone slaves of the state.

Now we are getting down to it. The OP asked which was more humanitarian - capitalism or socialism? So what is the answer? Is the answer capitalism or socialism?

The answer is socialism - you yourself have said that here because you have said capitalism is not about creating jobs or making people valued. It is about profit.

I get the impression that you consider profit to be some sort of “evil”. Lately the word “profit” suggests stealing or theft…by leftist definition.
I wish I had another word for it…but “profit” will have to do.
There is nothing morally or intrinsically wrong with profit. A person who works for wages is essentially “selling his valuable time” for a profit.

I don’t know if you have heard of or considered Rawl’s ‘veil of ignorance.’ I’m not a great fan of it but what I would say is from behind the veil of ignorance, no one would pick what you describe as ‘real’ capitalism. The reason they would not pick it is because your theory only benefits those with property/business rights. It doesn’t benefit anyone else. If it doesn’t benefit all of society it cannot be described as more humanitarian than socialism. You are free to argue that, but your argument will not stand up under scrutiny because it is not true.

My argument is very true and history bears it out. Capitalism is the system that raised the standard of living of its poorest citizens to heights no collectivist system has ever begun to equal. Remember the difference between East and West Germany before the “Wall” came down?
Sure, those with “property/business rights” prospered, but by doing so, everyone prospered.
Some may call this “Trickle Down Economy”…but it sure beats “Trickle up Poverty”.

Explain to me how ‘real capitalism’ is more humanitarian with examples of a ‘real’ capitalist society and the application in contemporary society. If one does not exist then you have no evidence. If you can’t relate it to contemporary society, it is impracticable.

I have said it before…real true pure Capitalism does not exist in the world today. All I can point to to the example of the Pilgrims I posted back in thread number 629.
Everyone prospered…what could be more humanitarian than that?

Do you see the weaknesses of ‘real’ capitalism?’ If so, what are they?

Franlky, I see no weaknesses, only strengths.

In all the debate these are the issues. We can argue that capitalism is more efficient than central planning and produces a stronger economy. On that point there is no contest - it is. But - here you say a business is not created to give people jobs. It is not started to make employees feel valued. It is started to make a profit. In which case this supports my argument capitalism makes no room for a welfare (humanitarian) principle. You can argue it does not need it. I argue it does. Why? Because it is people who create profit. If you use people to create profit, then I argue one must have a welfare principle, yet you say one is not needed. The only thing that is needed is for governments not to interfere. I can’t say I blame you if you are the one making the profit but, are you going to tell me the government would never need to interfere in a business for humanitarian reasons? Argue that if you like but I’m ready for you.

A person does not work with the intention of producing a profit for his employer. He works to benefit himself. He earns a wage and provides for his own self interest. By doing a fair day’s work, he enables the employer to make a profit. The employer is then able to PAY the worker what he has earned …from the profits.
Without the employer the worker has no means of support. Without the worker the employer has no ability to make a profit.
In a true Capitalistic economy, workers and employers are a team not adversaries. Employers benefit (more profit) by keeping the best workers happy. Good wages, benefits, rewards. Workers tend to work harder knowing there are potential rewards for their labor and therefore take home substantial paychecks. This breeds prosperity and eliminates welfare.

I know this may sound aggressive, but we have now established were each other stands, so it is now time for critical analysis, and I want to win the argument. The question was which is more humanitarian, socialism or capitalism? I say socialism because you have said capitalism is not about people or welfare but profit.

I think I have established that profit is a good and necessary thing.

As to welfare…

There would be NO welfare without profit.

In a Capitalist economy there is wealth that is produced by prosperity that is produced by profit. With that wealth…charity can be provided. Companies/business with strong profits are able to contribute more. Workers with substantial take home pay are able to be benevolent. Government interfering with the Free Market for humanitarian reasons would not only never be necessary…it would be unthinkable.