NationStates Jolt Archive

Once again, proof that capitalism is neither moral or immoral. It has absolutely no capacity for morality.

http://www.thepopeisdead.com/

Once again, proof that capitalism is neither moral or immoral. It has absolutely no capacity for morality.

We needed proof that an economic system isn't a moral guideline???

We needed proof that an economic system isn't a moral guideline???

Most intelligent people don't, but there are some people here that seem to insist that capitalism is the cause of all evil in the world today.

He snatched the domain name from a Pegan who was running anti-catholic propaganda for the website. He was going to put up a memorial to the pope but now wants to give the domain name to someone else. He isn't asking for a billion dollars or anything.

While I am a socialist to a degree, I don't see how this is anti-capitalist. If you want anti-capitalist fodder, try looking at Diamond Companies in Africa who basically treat their workers as slaves.

Capitalism is the only moral economic system.

Capitalism is the only moral political system because it is the only system dedicated to the protection of rights, which is a requirement for human survival and flourishing. This is the only proper role of a government. Capitalism should be defended vigorously on a moral basis, not an economic or utilitarian basis.

Most intelligent people don't, but there are some people here that seem to insist that capitalism is the cause of all evil in the world today.
Desire is the cause of all evil. Capitalism is just the glorification and organization of desire. ;)

Desire is the cause of all evil. Capitalism is just the glorification and organization of desire. ;)

I don't think that you could possibly justify that statement.

Desire is the cause of all evil. Capitalism is just the glorification and organization of desire. ;)

Uh, no. Not really, it's a consensual market-place based system, depending upon property rights and limited liability.

It's also lifted more people out of poverty world-wide than any other system. (In fact it's about the only system that can really make this claim).

All these famines and shit aren't caused by capitalism.

All you've done is linked to a website run by some jackass. Capitalism, being essentially hands off, doesn't punish people for jackassery. That's all.

Most intelligent people don't, but there are some people here that seem to insist that capitalism is the cause of all evil in the world today.
Not the cause, my English-born-living-in-Brazil friend, the MECHANISM of all evil in the world...

Capitalism is the only moral economic system.
Bah. Seen this crappy definition before. Didn't buy it then either.

Once again, proof that capitalism is neither moral or immoral. It has absolutely no capacity for morality.


Capitalism acknowledges that right and wrong are subjective and thus allows people the right to do whatever they think is right in their own lives, provided they allow others to do what they think is right in theirs. It is not objective fact that profiting from the pope's death is immoral or wrong. And if you think it is wrong, you don't have to buy www.thepopeisdead.com or visit it or let it worry you.

Desire is the cause of all evil. Capitalism is just the glorification and organization of desire. ;)

How is desire evil, doesn't desire create ambiton, and ambition create motivation, then motivation leads to the dark side, oops, sorry.

Here's another crap definition from the same site:

Multiculturalism is a belief derived from Moral Relativism. It claims that since all ethical systems are equally good or bad, we cannot judge people outside of their own ethical beliefs. It holds that a tribe of blood-thirsty cannibals is not morally worse than a civilized, peaceful nation. It holds that Nazi Germany was the equivalent of the United States.
Yeah, Canada's multicultural policies are really based on this definition. [/sarcasm]

Desire is the cause of all evil. Capitalism is just the glorification and organization of desire. ;)

Desire is the cause of all human action. Human action can be devided into the categories of good, neutral and evil, if you so wish. In which case desire is the cause of all evil. It is also the cause of all good and the cause of all amoral (look up what that word means will you, I think you meant to say immoral in the title) actions. Now if the division is more or less even between the three categories, desire is twice as likely to produce a non evil action as it is to produce an evil one.

To save you the trouble of finding a dictionary:

Main Entry: amor·al
Pronunciation: (")A-'mor-&l, (")a-, -'mär-
Function: adjective
1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral -- W. S. Thompson> b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>
source (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=amoral)

i agree with the thread title: capitalism is inherently neither moral or immoral.

I don't think that you could possibly justify that statement.
Well, if you want to know why desire is the cause of all evil, look into Buddhism. Because I'm not going to argue for that.

Assuming desire is evil, and the cause of all evil, though... You'e said that capitalism is the only "moral" economic system. Well, capitalism is separating people as individuals, each with their own wants and needs, mostly desires. Because in capitalism, the goal is not to produce enough to survive, but to produce as much as possible. This competition, while beneficial towards manufacturing goods and advancing in science, is damaging to the environment because it reaps the land at such an enormous rate, without giving it time to heal. And so, you have strip-mining, erosion, pesticides, human-growth hormone in our food, as well as the pollution put out by factories, which would be immense, if the government did not regulate companies.

More than this, there's a glorification of desire. "The American dream" is not to become a truly kind, generous person, that people would remember for their good deeds, nor is it to discover the truth about a certain issue, or anything to do with spirituality or family, really, the things that truly make life happy. No, the American dream is to work hard and strike it rich, through skill and luck, in order to finally "make it" into the upper crust of society. If you don't believe me, look at the amount of tabloids, over how concerned people are, with the lives of the rich... over what they're doing, what they wear, and who they're in love with. Many people are more concerned with the lives of the rich than their own lives. This is the glorification of desire. It is "the Protestant Ethic", and "the Virtue of Independence", and it is the pride in oneself, which leads us to feel that the best thing for the world, is what's best for us as individuals. When a whole society acts like this, people become unethical. In a "dog-eat-dog" world, if you don't stretch the rules to win, somebody else will, and you'll lose. So, things like wars fought over oil, stock scandals, and sweatshops appear, with the CEOs not even comprehending its immorality, ignoring it, or underestimating it. And the "organization" part goes without saying, when you look at the enormous amount of companies today, which are nothing more than financial institutions. Any philanthropy is simply meant to gain the public's faith, and therefore generate more sales. Wal-Mart "gives to charity", but then runs sweatshops. Is there any sense in that? Ethically, no. From a business perspective, it helps them sell more products.

Not the cause, my English-born-living-in-Brazil friend, the MECHANISM of all evil in the world...

Capitalism is a neutral mechanism. What is done with it by individuals may be evil. Unlike guns though, it may also be used for good, and often is. Do not blame the inventor for the use the invention is put to, if that invention can be used for the good of mankind. Only blame him if there is no good use possible, my canadian-married-to-a-south-american friend.

Well, if you want to know why desire is the cause of all evil, look into Buddhism. Because I'm not going to argue for that.

Assuming desire is evil,. . . *snip*

You can not assume something you are explicitly refusing to justify. I read no further than this, as it is evident that the argument has no grounding and would be a waste of everyones time.

Capitalism is a neutral mechanism. What is done with it by individuals may be evil. Unlike guns though, it may also be used for good, and often is. Do not blame the inventor for the use the invention is put to, if that invention can be used for the good of mankind. Only blame him if there is no good use possible, my canadian-married-to-a-south-american friend.
Oh, I blame. And I shall continue to blame, but ultimately I shall have to find a way to work within this mechanism of evil, converting it to good...just don't expect me to like it! *cavorts and giggles insanely*

You can not assume something you are explicitly refusing to justify. I read no further than this, as it is evident that the argument has no grounding and would be a waste of everyones time.
No, I don't, because I am not going to argue Buddhist philosophy over an online forum. It would take too long and would probably accomplish nothing.

I just assumed you were 'enlightened' enough to already agree with that basic premise.

No, I don't, because I am not going to argue Buddhist philosophy over an online forum. It would take too long and would probably accomplish nothing.

I just assumed you were 'enlightened' enough to already agree with that basic premise.

Are you saying all desire is the root of evil.

L.. O.. L

and here i was getting ready to blast the title of this thread. hehe

Are you saying all desire is the root of evil.
I think if you belive man in innatley good, in the sense he has the desire to help others, in a kinda kant-ish duty way, yeah that would be a fair assumption to make

desire is evil?

Doth thou smoketh crack?

EVERYTHING we do is a result of desire.


desire is evil... :rolleyes:

that is quite possibly the most rediculous statement I've ever heard

desire is evil?

Doth thou smoketh crack?

EVERYTHING we do is a result of desire.


desire is evil... :rolleyes:

that is quite possibly the most rediculous statement I've ever heard
Desire for what?

Not the cause, my English-born-living-in-Brazil friend, the MECHANISM of all evil in the world...
I would say that Totalitarian (stalinist and maoist) Communism has historically been much more of a mechanism for evil than capitalism has. Trying to run people's lives, their activities, their econonies, and ending up with famine and repression. Every time.

actually, as I think of it, I thought buddhists believed that desire was the cause of suffering, not evil. Big fucking difference.

Once again, proof that capitalism is neither moral or immoral. It has absolutely no capacity for morality.

http://www.thepopeisdead.com/
I thought you were liberal.

Desire is the cause of all evil.
That's not what yo' momma said last night!

Capitalism is reponsible for evil, yet socialism is good? I though Hitler came to power in Socialist Germany through the Socialist party . . .

actually, as I think of it, I thought buddhists believed that desire was the cause of suffering, not evil. Big fucking difference.
Is "the cause of all suffering", good or evil?

Is "the cause of all suffering", good or evil?
Suffering is also seen a nessasery part of the living experience for them. It is neither good or evil.

EDIT: "Life is suffering" is part of the Four Noble Truths IIRC

Suffering is also seen a nessasery part of the living experience for them. It is neither good or evil.
Well said. Life without suffering, trials, and challenges is utterly meaningless.

Unlike guns though, it may also be used for good, and often is.

:headbang:

I retract my last statement regarding the most rediculous statement I've ever heard.

deer + :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: = food

but I guess sustaining the human race doesn't count as "good" :rolleyes:

Capitalism is a neutral mechanism. What is done with it by individuals may be evil. Unlike guns though, it may also be used for good, and often is. Do not blame the inventor for the use the invention is put to, if that invention can be used for the good of mankind. Only blame him if there is no good use possible, my canadian-married-to-a-south-american friend.
"Amoral" fits capitalism for more than neutral, because the emphasis is always on individual achievement, not the good of others. Any good deeds are only done for selfish reasons. In capitalism, there are voluntary contracts. Well, why enter into a contract, where someone else is simply benefiting from YOUR capital? You wouldn't. There is no charity, just success and failure.

He snatched the domain name from a Pegan who was running anti-catholic propaganda for the website. He was going to put up a memorial to the pope but now wants to give the domain name to someone else. He isn't asking for a billion dollars or anything.

While I am a socialist to a degree, I don't see how this is anti-capitalist. If you want anti-capitalist fodder, try looking at Diamond Companies in Africa who basically treat their workers as slaves.

Don't get me started about Debeers, most evilist company on the face of the earth. Known to have toppled governments to get at diamond mines. Virtual slavery for thousands of people. DOn't buy diamond unless you can prove they didn't come from the pigs at Debeers.

Capitalism is reponsible for evil, yet socialism is good? I though Hitler came to power in Socialist Germany through the Socialist party . . .
No, he came into power in the Weimar Republic which was not socialist (even though the SDP was a huge party). And his party weren't the socialisy party, that would be the aforementioned SDP

:headbang:

I retract my last statement regarding the most rediculous statement I've ever heard.

deer + :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: = food

but I guess sustaining the human race doesn't count as "good" :rolleyes:
Hey, we can use guns to kill grizzly bears that are mauling your friends. And mean hostile intergalacticimperialist aliens when they come. :D

No, he came into power in the Weimar Republic which was not socialist (even though the SDP was a huge party). And his party weren't the socialisy party, that would be the aforementioned SDP
Ever heard of the National Socialist Party? They would be the Nazis.

Desire for what?

Desire in general... Every action we take is the result of our desire for some result

Ever heard of the National Socialist Party? They would be the Nazis.

And? They weren't the 'Socialist' party of Weimar Republic.

Anyway, the 'socialist' part of the Nazi party's name was morea PR thing to get the votes of workers rather then a commitment to socialism.

i agree with the thread title: capitalism is inherently neither moral or immoral.

I'm glad someone noticed that. I didn't want to be the only one.

I thought you were liberal.

Liberal does not equal Communist.

capitalism itself isn't immoral, but the way it is usually implemented in the real world is immoral. the same goes for socailism, communism and any other system you can think of.

capitalism itself isn't immoral, but the way it is usually implemented in the real world is immoral. the same goes for socailism, communism and any other system you can think of.
Now theres a point worth mentioning! ...have a cookie...

Is "the cause of all suffering", good or evil?

Neither, obviously.

And? They weren't the 'Socialist' party of Weimar Republic.

Anyway, the 'socialist' part of the Nazi party's name was morea PR thing to get the votes of workers rather then a commitment to socialism.

Economically Hitler was a socialist in the sense that he advocated fairly heavy government regulation as oppose to exclusively free enterprise. Government spending was very heavy, even if it was oriented more towards military production than social welfare. Hitler was certainly a socialist of sorts.

Economically Hitler was a socialist in the sense that he advocated fairly heavy government regulation as oppose to exclusively free enterprise. Government spending was very heavy, even if it was oriented more towards military production than social welfare. Hitler was certainly a socialist of sorts.

Perhaps in his economic spending, but Socialists are usually liberal, and liberals don't tend to be the type to commit mass genocide. And Joseph Stalin wasn't a Liberal like we have here in America. He was a communist dictator who commited an act of genocide greater than Hitllers.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Without evil, there is no good.

If you kill me, I shall become stronger than you... no wait, I'll be a headless corpse, scratch that one.

I desire pancakes right now. Is that evil? Sometimes, for example after a long walk or jog, I desire a shower. WHAT A SICK PERSON I AM! Heck, sometimes I even desire... I'm ashamed to admit it... water, so that I can get the sandpaper out of my throat. I'd like to live in your world, my friend. It sounds like a nice place, what with all those stinking corpses everywhere.

Capitalism is simply the most efficient way to produce goods and alleviate poverty. Look at what socialism has done; killed hundreds of millions of people through direct, tyrannical means, subverted half of the world's population into unberable poverty, and starved quite a few people too. It destroys the individual. Capitalism isn't so much a system as a lack of one; it is liberty.

Bah. Seen this crappy definition before. Didn't buy it then either.

It isn't a definition.

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on individual rights. The most moral thing a government can do is to maintain that people can act autonomously and in their own self interest.

Economically Hitler was a socialist in the sense that he advocated fairly heavy government regulation as oppose to exclusively free enterprise.

The is not a bipolar economic scale with socialism on one hand and the free market on the other.

Absolutist monarchs also would regulate markets.

Though socialists tend to argue for a regulated economy, a regulated economy is not solely socialist.

Socialists want a regulated economy to help protect workers. Hitler wan't a regulated economy to solely benefit the state.

Government spending was very heavy, even if it was oriented more towards military production than social welfare. Hitler was certainly a socialist of sorts.

Sorry I refuse to believe that (and not from a ideological point of view, I don't consider myself a socialist). Any socialists policies he had were incidental, rather then an ideological link imo.

Sorry I refuse to believe that (and not from a ideological point of view, I don't consider myself a socialist). Any socialists policies he had were incidental, rather then an ideological link imo.

Not really, one of the Nazi "planks" was "freedom to starve is not freedom" and Hitler successfully pushed for a full participation economy. (IE he guaranteed jobs for all).

He also believed in public health care &ct. In fact, he went so far as to set up a government factory to provide every family with a car. All very socialist.

He did start a big war though, and was pretty poor on the civil rights front.

Perhaps in his economic spending, but Socialists are usually liberal, and liberals don't tend to be the type to commit mass genocide. And Joseph Stalin wasn't a Liberal like we have here in America. He was a communist dictator who commited an act of genocide greater than Hitllers.

That socialists are usually liberal is not necessarily true. I usually think of socialism as a purely economic idea - one which supports heavy regulation of private business, a large public sector and a lot of government spending. Joseph Stalin was a socialist, and he was also a social authoritarian.

Anyway, haven't we strayed a little from the original topic?

I maintain that since morality is completely personal and subjective, capitalism isn't evil and it isn't good.

It allows people to act upon their own ideas of morality provided they allow others to do the same, and prevents people from enforcing what may be "right" or "wrong" morals onto other people, which is... equally beneficial to all concepts of morality.

I desire pancakes right now. Is that evil?

I think you are simplifying somewhat, desire doesn't automatically cause suffering. But it tends to be the root of suffering.

(To go along with your pancake thing) You may desire a pancake, obviously there is no suffering there (or evilness if you believe that suffering = evil). But suppose if you really desire pancakes, but cannot get them and that really pisses you off and makes you suffer (trust me, this suffering/desire/pancake thing sounded ok in my head, but know I have typed it out it looks stupid)

Sorry I refuse to believe that (and not from a ideological point of view, I don't consider myself a socialist). Any socialists policies he had were incidental, rather then an ideological link imo.

His strategies included a desire to help the unemployed and destitute.

He called himself a socialist, and he believed in and acted upon some major tenets of socialism.

Coincidence? I think not.

Most intelligent people don't, but there are some people here that seem to insist that capitalism is the cause of all evil in the world today.

I have never in my life met somebody who puts the blame of all the world's evil onto one particular system's shoulders...do these people exist?!

Not really, one of the Nazi "planks" was "freedom to starve is not freedom" and Hitler successfully pushed for a full participation economy. (IE he guaranteed jobs for all).

He also believed in public health care &ct. In fact, he went so far as to set up a government factory to provide every family with a car. All very socialist.

Yes but he didn't come to the conclusion from a socialist viewpoint, but from a, ...umm... facist viewpoint. That is, the socialist viewpoint for universal healthcare is that everyone is entitled to it from a human rights aspect, whilst the facist justification for universal health care is that otherwise the state might suffer.

He did have socialist type policies, but I don't think they were anymore socialist then the capitalist policies are capitalists.

He did start a big war though, and was pretty poor on the civil rights front.:D

Neither, obviously.
Let's say there was a virus, which ravaged the entire world. For some, it made their lives pleasurable. For others, it meant suffering and death.

It that virus good or evil?

"Life is suffering" is part of the four noble truths, but that does not imply 'desire' is a virtue. No, a Buddhist's duty is to remove suffering, through the middle path, which is essentially a balance between outright eliminating desire (which ends in death, obviously) and living it without restraining desire. So, most devout Buddhists (people who fully adhere to it, not just the esoteric aspects) live on the absolute minimum resources required, and pledge to never cause harm, whether it's a human being or a flea.

Obviously, from this, you can see their perception of desire is not a positive one. On the other hand, I'd understand what you mean when you say it is not "bad", either, because to them, nothing is intrinsically bad or good. However, desire is something to be overcome, and that is the goal of the Buddhist. It is an "obstacle."

Even within Christianity, Jesus mostly practiced and preached renunciation, saying that it's hard for a rich man to enter heaven. When a virtuous rich man asked how to get into heaven, Christ told him to give all of his possessions away. Christ told all of his followers to carry no food and no money, but to live on faith. Another example of this is when a woman threw perfume on Christ and his followers reacted angrily, saying that the perfume could've been sold to feed the hungry. Although Christ condoned her act, it was very clear from his followers' reactions that, usually, he proclaimed that keeping treasure for oneself while others starve was blasphemous-as the work of every man is the work of God, and the work of God is not to become fat and apathetic, just as the Jews were, but to act in a way which benefits all mankind.

Both businesses and governments are voluntary organizations, one is simply the "business of the people." If groups within business can be allowed to form, and do as they please, for their own goals, then the government should also be allowed to exist, with its own goals as well. Because an organization with the goal of universal prosperity is far more noble than an organization with the goal of individual, financial success. If businesses, nor certain individuals do not like it, by all means, move to some foreign country, where you're allowed to be as rich as you like, although the government generally enslaves the population.

First Post :p

My nation's UN Category is 'Moralistic Democracy' but it's Capitalist.

Economic systems are not good or evil. On the other hand, they do allow different amounts of individual freedom.

Capitalism allows the individual the freedom to choose where he will work, and what job he will do. When his choices are limited, it is do to circumstances/the market which act fairly in that the market cannot act in a way to directly affect any one person or group. The market is mindless.

On the other hand, with socialism, the individual has his freedoms greatly reduced. His limitations are imposed on him by The Planner(s). The Planner is required to make choices that will directly affect groups or individuals, in the interest of the people. The planner cannot be fair in doing this, because he chooses who will be affected by his decisions.

Let's say there was a virus, which ravaged the entire world. For some, it made their lives pleasurable. For others, it meant suffering and death.

It that virus good or evil?

Evil imo. (Well, to an extent)

But I fail to see the relevence of this.

Suffering = death or any of the worst extremities that you seem fixated on

"Life is suffering" is part of the four noble truths, but that does not imply 'desire' is a virtue.

No one said it did.

But it is certainly good for the economy :p

No, a Buddhist's duty is to remove suffering, through the middle path, which is essentially a balance between outright eliminating desire (which ends in death, obviously) and living it without restraining desire. So, most devout Buddhists (people who fully adhere to it, not just the esoteric aspects) live on the absolute minimum resources required, and pledge to never cause harm, whether it's a human being or a flea.

Obviously, from this, you can see their perception of desire is not a positive one. On the other hand, I'd understand what you mean when you say it is not "bad", either, because to them, nothing is intrinsically bad or good. However, desire is something to be overcome, and that is the goal of the Buddhist. It is an "obstacle."

Obviously it is not good. That is why he said it is neither [good or bad].

Even within Christianity, Jesus mostly practiced and preached renunciation, saying that it's hard for a rich man to enter heaven. When a virtuous rich man asked how to get into heaven, Christ told him to give all of his possessions away. Christ told all of his followers to carry no food and no money, but to live on faith. Another example of this is when a woman threw perfume on Christ and his followers reacted angrily, saying that the perfume could've been sold to feed the hungry. Although Christ condoned her act, it was very clear from his followers' reactions that, usually, he proclaimed that keeping treasure for oneself while others starve was blasphemous-as the work of every man is the work of God, and the work of God is not to become fat and apathetic, just as the Jews were, but to act in a way which benefits all mankind.

So? Jesus was an ascetic?

On the other hand, with socialism, the individual has his freedoms greatly reduced. His limitations are imposed on him by The Planner(s). The Planner is required to make choices that will directly affect groups or individuals, in the interest of the people. The planner cannot be fair in doing this, because he chooses who will be affected by his decisions.

:confused:

This is like no socialism I have ever seen (well, tell a lie. Very close to technocracy, but technocrats are fairly rare these days).

Yes but he didn't come to the conclusion from a socialist viewpoint, but from a, ...umm... facist viewpoint. That is, the socialist viewpoint for universal healthcare is that everyone is entitled to it from a human rights aspect, whilst the facist justification for universal health care is that otherwise the state might suffer.


Why would the state suffer from not having universal healthcare? If anything, it would suffer more by providing it, since it would have to spend a lot and endure all the hardships which must be endured by providing a huge industry to a country. They certainly didn't stand to make any money from providing it, that's for sure.

If you want to be very anal, capitalism is amoral because it doesn't actually do things. People do things through capitalism that are immoral.

Why would the state suffer from not having universal healthcare? If anything, it would suffer more by providing it, since it would have to spend a lot and endure all the hardships which must be endured by providing a huge industry to a country. They certainly didn't stand to make any money from providing it, that's for sure.
Not all benefits are monetary.

It helps pacify the workers and those that are not able to afford private healthcare.

People are more willing to give up rights and liberties if they stand to gain something.

It stops manhours being lost.

May prevent contagions.

lipstopia, you are completely wrong! there isn't just *one* capitalism system, and there isn't just *one* socialism system either. they are ideals that can be implemented in a huge number of ways. socialism is no less liberal than capitalism and vise-versa. how a country implements them effects how liberal they are.

Capitalism is simply the most efficient way to produce goods and alleviate poverty. Look at what socialism has done; killed hundreds of millions of people through direct, tyrannical means, subverted half of the world's population into unberable poverty, and starved quite a few people too. It destroys the individual. Capitalism isn't so much a system as a lack of one; it is liberty.

I really have issues with people who can't seperate politcal and economic systems. Killing people through direct, tyrannical means is true of most corrupt dictatorships and subverting half of the world's population into unberable poverty, and starving quite a few people is mostly the result of poor management. Were you to live in capitalism if it were "the lack of" a system you would find it very oppresive too. Large corporations would dominate markets to the point where they could charge anything they wanted (Debeers is a perfect example of Capitalism gone wrong), hardly liberty.

I have never in my life met somebody who puts the blame of all the world's evil onto one particular system's shoulders...do these people exist?!
You obviously haven't been on this forum for very long. That type of person is very common! You should see the people who blame all the world's evil on Bush, capitalism, communism, or religion!!!

Let's say there was a virus, which ravaged the entire world. For some, it made their lives pleasurable. For others, it meant suffering and death.

It that virus good or evil?

Neither, it's a virus. That's like saying is HIV evil. It isn't it's just a virus.

"Life is suffering" is part of the four noble truths, but that does not imply 'desire' is a virtue. No, a Buddhist's duty is to remove suffering, through the middle path, which is essentially a balance between outright eliminating desire (which ends in death, obviously) and living it without restraining desire. So, most devout Buddhists (people who fully adhere to it, not just the esoteric aspects) live on the absolute minimum resources required, and pledge to never cause harm, whether it's a human being or a flea.

Obviously, from this, you can see their perception of desire is not a positive one. On the other hand, I'd understand what you mean when you say it is not "bad", either, because to them, nothing is intrinsically bad or good. However, desire is something to be overcome, and that is the goal of the Buddhist. It is an "obstacle."

I'm not sure I agree with this characterization. All the buddhists I know certainly don't live on an absolute minimum. Nor do I agree that their perception of desire is a negative one. Rather they seem to view desire as the root of suffering and nothing more. Desire can either be eliminated - say taking a drink when thisty, thus ending the suffering - or overcome by denying the desire. Which method is used depends on whether fulfilling (eliminating) the desire would lead to a bad action (more suffering) or a good action (less suffering). Nothing more.

So desire in of itself is neither good or bad; positive or negative. How that desire is fulfilled (whether by right action or not) is the key.

Even within Christianity, Jesus mostly practiced and preached renunciation, saying that it's hard for a rich man to enter heaven. When a virtuous rich man asked how to get into heaven, Christ told him to give all of his possessions away. Christ told all of his followers to carry no food and no money, but to live on faith. Another example of this is when a woman threw perfume on Christ and his followers reacted angrily, saying that the perfume could've been sold to feed the hungry. Although Christ condoned her act, it was very clear from his followers' reactions that, usually, he proclaimed that keeping treasure for oneself while others starve was blasphemous-as the work of every man is the work of God, and the work of God is not to become fat and apathetic, just as the Jews were, but to act in a way which benefits all mankind.

I am fairly sure Jesus condoned killing children and cursed fig-trees as well. So let's leave him out of this.

Both businesses and governments are voluntary organizations, one is simply the "business of the people." If groups within business can be allowed to form, and do as they please, for their own goals, then the government should also be allowed to exist, with its own goals as well. Because an organization with the goal of universal prosperity is far more noble than an organization with the goal of individual, financial success. If businesses, nor certain individuals do not like it, by all means, move to some foreign country, where you're allowed to be as rich as you like, although the government generally enslaves the population.

This is the route of the problem. Government is not voluntary. It has a monoply of coercive force which it is quite willing to use, whereas, yes corporations are voluntary organizations.

The problem is when government and corporate power becomes intertwined, and the government begins to use its monopoly of force to benefit a few of the many corporations - usually the large ones. This however is not capitalism at that point, but heading towards a corporate state. Corporate states are bad, and most classic liberals like myself would agree this is a situation to be avoided.

But in any case, the creation of a corporate state cannot be blamed upon the corporations, because that is exactly the type of thing corporate executives are expected to try - maximize returns using all legal means. No the fault is clearly with the government -and usually begins with left leaning politicians that want to regulate and subsidize anything and everything - because it is the government's duty to not sell out, not the corporations duty not to try. After all their first duty is to society, not any particular corporation. All you suceed in doing by complaining about a corporate state is make a good argument that ultimately governments are inherently more corrupt that publically held corporations. (Which they are).

As we elect the government, really, you should blame the voters. Not capitalism itself. Capitalism is fine.

You obviously haven't been on this forum for very long. That type of person is very common! You should see the people who blame all the world's evil on Bush, capitalism, communism, or religion!!!

I haven't come across many people who blame everything on one specific thing, but I have read posts from many a-person saying that a lot of the world's evil is due to one thing in particular.

by the way, I agree with the people who put this blame on religion...but that's not for this thread.

If you want to be very anal, capitalism is amoral because it doesn't actually do things. People do things through capitalism that are immoral.

That is exactly why it is moral, the freedom it provides.

I guess you could say that capitalism is moral simply because it doesn't make moral judgements.

I don't really believe you can claim Capitalism to be moral or immoral in its entirety; I think it has good and bad things about it...there are very, very few things when you really think about it, which are entirely moral or immoral (I'm not really tlaking about moral decisions though here)

Sorry I refuse to believe that (and not from a ideological point of view, I don't consider myself a socialist). Any socialists policies he had were incidental, rather then an ideological link imo.

Hitler grew up in the same German universities that spawned Socialism and all it's derivatives, he and the population he governed where indoctrinated with it through higher education. His personal believes included MANY primary tenants of Socialism and his rule certainly reflected this. The only thing is that his particular brand of application WAS a bit off from the norm, it was still Socialism. For instance his grip on certain specific industries was somewhat lacking, allowing slightly more private growth then "standard" Socialism calls for. This is why some inaccurately call him a Capitalist, however he was no such thing.

On his part WWII was largely a war for resources, he needed raw material to run his new economy. To take land he needed a military so a good portion of German industry was spent on the War Machine. However, social welfare was alive and well even after the war had dragged on.

Assuming desire is evil, and the cause of all evil, though... You'e said that capitalism is the only "moral" economic system. Well, capitalism is separating people as individuals, each with their own wants and needs, mostly desires. Because in capitalism, the goal is not to produce enough to survive, but to produce as much as possible.

Not true. Capitalism is, at its roots, the idea that those who perform the best should be rewarded. What is considered "the best" is decided by the market. It could be producing as much as possible, or producing a given quantity using less resources, or any number of other things.

This competition, while beneficial towards manufacturing goods and advancing in science, is damaging to the environment because it reaps the land at such an enormous rate, without giving it time to heal. And so, you have strip-mining, erosion, pesticides, human-growth hormone in our food, as well as the pollution put out by factories, which would be immense, if the government did not regulate companies.

Patently false. I have heard environmentalists use this argument time and time again, and they have been proven wrong time and time again. In a market system, companies respond to a demand for environmentally safe goods, or goods produced by environmentally friendly means without intervention of the government. The decline in polluting industries, and corresponding pollution levels in the United States actually predates government regulations on pollution. "Green" companies do exist, but usually not for long, as they discover that there isn't sufficient demand for environmental friendliness to justify the extra costs. The market has been getting more environmentally friendly in recent years, but it is a slow process (just look at how long it is taking for car companies to sell the market on hybrid cars - the demand just isn't there).

More than this, there's a glorification of desire. "The American dream" is not to become a truly kind, generous person, that people would remember for their good deeds, nor is it to discover the truth about a certain issue, or anything to do with spirituality or family, really, the things that truly make life happy. No, the American dream is to work hard and strike it rich, through skill and luck, in order to finally "make it" into the upper crust of society. If you don't believe me, look at the amount of tabloids, over how concerned people are, with the lives of the rich... over what they're doing, what they wear, and who they're in love with. Many people are more concerned with the lives of the rich than their own lives. This is the glorification of desire. It is "the Protestant Ethic", and "the Virtue of Independence", and it is the pride in oneself, which leads us to feel that the best thing for the world, is what's best for us as individuals. When a whole society acts like this, people become unethical.

How exactly are they unethical? If your defintion of ethical behavior is to do what is best for the world, even if it is not in your own best interest, then I suppose you are correct; but I don't subscribe to that ethical belief.

In a "dog-eat-dog" world, if you don't stretch the rules to win, somebody else will, and you'll lose. So, things like wars fought over oil, stock scandals, and sweatshops appear, with the CEOs not even comprehending its immorality, ignoring it, or underestimating it. And the "organization" part goes without saying, when you look at the enormous amount of companies today, which are nothing more than financial institutions. Any philanthropy is simply meant to gain the public's faith, and therefore generate more sales. Wal-Mart "gives to charity", but then runs sweatshops. Is there any sense in that? Ethically, no. From a business perspective, it helps them sell more products.

Yes, these things happen, but they are not representative of the whole, no more than Hitler or Mussolini were representative of socialists.

If I had the time, I could write a similar argument explaining how socialism is immoral, and then another which explains why it is moral. The problem is, it is an economic system, just as capitalism is. There is nothing inherently morla or immoral about them, its all in the implementation.

i agree with the thread title: capitalism is inherently neither moral or immoral.
In two respects: if you view morality as subjective, then it depends on the view.
Second: it could be said no ideology is "evil", but rather the people under its banner turn it into such- it serves as an outlet.

Hitler grew up in the same German universities that spawned Socialism and all it's derivatives,

Sorry what? Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier and Godwin went to German universities?

he and the population he governed where indoctrinated with it through higher education.

Higher education was effectively meaningless in the Third Reich, they were taught the ideals of a German volk and to obey orders etc. They weren't indoctorinated with Socialism. Trade Unions were banned, captains of industry were bought into government effective monopolies were created.

His personal believes included MANY primary tenants of Socialism and his rule certainly reflected this.

Like what?

He certainly was no egalitarian and he didn't think all people should be treated the same.

He didn't believe in universal suffarage.

He didn't believe in turning control of the means of production over to the workers. He didn't even allow Trade Unions.

So what primary tenets are you talking about?

The only thing is that his particular brand of application WAS a bit off from the norm, it was still Socialism. For instance his grip on certain specific industries was somewhat lacking, allowing slightly more private growth then "standard" Socialism calls for. This is why some inaccurately call him a Capitalist, however he was no such thing.

Socialism isn't the only ideology that calls for regulation of markets.

And like I said before, Hitler was just as socialist as he was capitalist (that is not very).

On his part WWII was largely a war for resources, he needed raw material to run his new economy. To take land he needed a military so a good portion of German industry was spent on the War Machine. However, social welfare was alive and well even after the war had dragged on.

Whilst social welfare is argued for by socialists it predates socialism by a long time.

Capitalism is the only moral economic system.


Oh yes ofcourse... except for the fact that it violates the Commandment 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods'... ofcourse, so-called 'Christians' today seem to overlook that little fact...

Oh yes ofcourse... except for the fact that it violates the Commandment 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods'... ofcourse, so-called 'Christians' today seem to overlook that little fact...
Everyone covets, and we most likely will continue to do so.

Liberal does not equal Communist.
That's my point; he calls himself liberal yet opposes capitalism. Unless I'm very mistaken, liberals usually support capitalism (yes that includes every definition of the word "liberal").

Oh yes ofcourse... except for the fact that it violates the Commandment 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods'... ofcourse, so-called 'Christians' today seem to overlook that little fact...

It says nothing about coveting other people's goods. It just states that through a fair exchange of capital you can come to own your neighbor's goods.

:confused:

This is like no socialism I have ever seen (well, tell a lie. Very close to technocracy, but technocrats are fairly rare these days).

So socialism no longer involves centralized planning? Then how is property distributed?

So socialism no longer involves centralized planning? Then how is property distributed?
You have taken one school of thought of socialism and applied it to all schools under the umbrella of socialism.

"Capitalism is AMORAL!"

Oh yeah? Well, so's yer MOMMA! :D

You have taken one school of thought of socialism and applied it to all schools under the umbrella of socialism.

Which does not answer my question. Without planning, what how is property distributed? I am trying to find out about the other schools of socialism.

Capitalism is a market system, it's not a Bible that tells you how to act. It is the most efficient and most free market system, but that inherently makes it susceptible to human nature, which could potentially mean that it is corrupted by greed.
However, Capitalism rules! If you don't like a free market system, then move to China.

Most modern, successful states tend to have a capitalist economy run by liberal governments. Its the ideal balance because the liberalness of the government provides rights and liberties for the people while the capitalism provides prosperity and opportunity for all.

Socialism on the other hand just tends to ruin the economy and make the government launch official murdering sprees in the name of the Motherland.

Most capitalists and specially the right wing republicans in the US (seen in the free, developed world as something near fascisme or even nazisme, ask the multiple muslim refugees towards Canada or other parts of the free world where they are not as opressed as in the US!) agreed with the pope and bow their hypocrit head for him. They must now that the late pope was against the US extremist system just like he condamned communisme, he had his ban on the (US-kind) capitalists system to where selfishnes is the base of everything. That is just a fact and history.

JPII can hardly be condamned as a commie...

Which does not answer my question. Without planning, what how is property distributed?

Not all socialism call for all property to be evenly distributed (I think Mutualism would be an example of this).

More extreme type collectivise property (gross exagerration I know). So that it isn't redistributed but commonly owned by the community.

It is largely social democrats that are into redistribution as I think you are thinking of it. But are statists and like the state.

I am trying to find out about the other schools of socialism.

Well socialists don't seem to be the most easy going bunch. They are constantly having arguements and splitting apart. Also different countries and different classes come up with their own forms.

Different forms would be technocracy (I'll include Owen's paternalism under this), Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-syndicalism (who are fairly close to AnCommie but not quite the same), British Trade Unionism (not sure about the trade union movements in other countries), Fabianism, Marxism, Marxist Revisionism (eg, Bernstein's revisionism), Utopian socialism, mutualism, anarcho individualism (I don't know if this is the proper term or not), social democracy yada yada yada.

There are also more subdivisions withing them.

Capitalism is a market system, it's not a Bible that tells you how to act. It is the most efficient and most free market system, but that inherently makes it susceptible to human nature, which could potentially mean that it is corrupted by greed.
However, Capitalism rules! If you don't like a free market system, then move to China.

Capitalists don't have a monopoly on the free market ;)

Most capitalists and specially the right wing republicans in the US (seen in the free, developed world as something near fascisme or even nazisme, ask the multiple muslim refugees towards Canada or other parts of the free world where they are not as opressed as in the US!) agreed with the pope and bow their hypocrit head for him. They must now that the late pope was against the US extremist system just like he condamned communisme, he had his ban on the (US-kind) capitalists system to where selfishnes is the base of everything. That is just a fact and history.

JPII can hardly be condamned as a commie...

When Islam is the religion capable of hosting evil terrorists with the lack of emotion to slowly saw off innocent 'Infidel' prisoner's heads with a rusty hacksaw, I see very little reason to ask Muslims much about oppression.

Capitalists don't have a monopoly on the free market ;)

I never said that, did I?
Capitalism, however, leaves the market most open for monopolies, which is good for the monopolizer. They worked to earn it, they deserve it. No reason for liberal governments to take them down.

When Islam is the religion capable of hosting evil terrorists with the lack of emotion to slowly saw off innocent 'Infidel' prisoner's heads with a rusty hacksaw, I see very little reason to ask Muslims much about oppression.
It you think Islam is the only religion capable of doing that I suggest you read some history.

I never said that, did I?
Capitalism, however, leaves the market most open for monopolies, which is good for the monopolizer. They worked to earn it, they deserve it. No reason for liberal governments to take them down.
Sorry must have misinterpreted your last clauses:

Capitalism rules! If you don't like a free market system, then move to China.Looked to me you were equating the free market to capitalism and capitalism alone :)

Sorry if I misinterpreted you.

It you think Islam is the only religion capable of doing that I suggest you read some history.

Oooooohhh. Come now. I know what you mean, but that is not exactly right.

1) The Christians who committed those horrid acts a loooong time ago were, by all rights, heretics. They did not follow God's law, and, although they said they were Christian, they probably were not.
2) Have you read Islamic scripts? It says outright, become a martyr by killing the Infidels and you'll go to heaven, no matter what.

Sorry must have misinterpreted your last clauses:

Looked to me you were equating the free market to capitalism and capitalism alone :)

Sorry if I misinterpreted you.

Ah yes, oops, musta not been clear enough.
Nonetheless, capitalism leaves the market most open, and, unfortunately, most susceptible to greed. It is a price we must pay.

Oooooohhh. Come now. I know what you mean, but that is not exactly right.

1) The Christians who committed those horrid acts a loooong time ago were, by all rights, heretics. They did not follow God's law, and, although they said they were Christian, they probably were not.

Surprisingly some of the most 'Christian' sects (I talking of the Cathars) were declared heretics.

But I get your point.

2) Have you read Islamic scripts? It says outright, become a martyr by killing the Infidels and you'll go to heaven, no matter what.

Ooh, I'm not going to touch this with a barge poll.

But no it doesn't say that. Maybe if Keruvalia sees this he could set you straight (my knowledge on Islam isn't brilliant).

"Capitalism is AMORAL!"

Oh yeah? Well, so's yer MOMMA! :D
I wanted to say that! :D

When Islam is the religion capable of hosting evil terrorists with the lack of emotion to slowly saw off innocent 'Infidel' prisoner's heads with a rusty hacksaw, I see very little reason to ask Muslims much about oppression.
Please don't be ignorant.

Terrorists follow Islam about as closely as Hitler followed Christianity. They have warped the conventions of Islam far beyond recognition to suit their delusional extremist beliefs.

"Capitalism is AMORAL!"

Oh yeah? Well, so's yer MOMMA! :D
Too late, I already did that joke in this thread, but better than you.

Oooooohhh. Come now. I know what you mean, but that is not exactly right.

1) The Christians who committed those horrid acts a loooong time ago were, by all rights, heretics. They did not follow God's law, and, although they said they were Christian, they probably were not.
2) Have you read Islamic scripts? It says outright, become a martyr by killing the Infidels and you'll go to heaven, no matter what.
Have you read the Koran, by any chance? Or even discussed this issue with a Muslim?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Most capitalists and specially the right wing republicans in the US (seen in the free, developed world as something near fascisme or even nazisme, ask the multiple muslim refugees towards Canada or other parts of the free world where they are not as opressed as in the US!) agreed with the pope and bow their hypocrit head for him. They must now that the late pope was against the US extremist system just like he condamned communisme, he had his ban on the (US-kind) capitalists system to where selfishnes is the base of everything. That is just a fact and history.

Uh.. what?

capitalists are seen as nazis? Fascism and nazism are two of the furthest possible government systems from capitalism. As for oppressing muslims, well a central tenet of capitalism is that everybody should be treated completely equal under the law, and that nobody should get special treatment, or indeed unfairly bad treatment. Seperation of church and state are an important part of capitalism as I see it, the government shouldn't be able to pick favorites when it comes to religion. I'm a capitalist, and I don't "bow my hypocrit head" to the pope at all, I'm an atheist.

capitalism itself isn't immoral, but the way it is usually implemented in the real world is immoral. the same goes for socailism, communism and any other system you can think of.

As soon as it becomes implemented in some way thats moral/immoral (the two are exchangable... moral to who? immoral to who?) then it's not really capitalism anymore...

Uh.. what?

capitalists are seen as nazis? Fascism and nazism are two of the furthest possible government systems from capitalism. As for oppressing muslims, well a central tenet of capitalism is that everybody should be treated completely equal under the law, and that nobody should get special treatment, or indeed unfairly bad treatment. Seperation of church and state are an important part of capitalism as I see it, the government shouldn't be able to pick favorites when it comes to religion. I'm a capitalist, and I don't "bow my hypocrit head" to the pope at all, I'm an atheist.

You would be correct, except that what you are describing is only half of capitalism (libertarian capitalism, which requires equal treatment under the law). Conservative capitalism, in its extreme, demands a strict moral order (be it religious, classist, or aristocratic), just like conservative socialism (fascism and nazism).

You would be correct, except that what you are describing is only half of capitalism (libertarian capitalism, which requires equal treatment under the law). Conservative capitalism, in its extreme, demands a strict moral order (be it religious, classist, or aristocratic), just like conservative socialism (fascism and nazism).

The conservative capitalism in its extreme which you describe, once its extremity reaches a certain level, ceases to be capitalism at all. This is because essentially everything you do can be viewed as a form of business, and higher levels of social restriction will also restrict business.

Take this as an example. If the government takes a religious stance on society and outlaws sex outside of marriage. The entire prostitution and hardcore porn industries completely die overnight. (You might think this is a good thing, but the right to have sex for money is an economic freedom none the less).

Say they also outlaw alcohol on moral or practical grounds. Brewers are out of a job, and off-licenses (liquor stores) make a lot less cash too.

What people consider social freedoms are actually almost always tied in with a business or industry, and if you shut down those social freedoms, you're shutting down the businesses and industries associated with those freedoms.

That's one of the reasons I like it.

The conservative capitalism in its extreme which you describe, once its extremity reaches a certain level, ceases to be capitalism at all. This is because essentially everything you do can be viewed as a form of business, and higher levels of social restriction will also restrict business.

Take this as an example. If the government takes a religious stance on society and outlaws sex outside of marriage. The entire prostitution and hardcore porn industries completely die overnight. (You might think this is a good thing, but the right to have sex for money is an economic freedom none the less).

Say they also outlaw alcohol on moral or practical grounds. Brewers are out of a job, and off-licenses (liquor stores) make a lot less cash too.

What people consider social freedoms are actually almost always tied in with a business or industry, and if you shut down those social freedoms, you're shutting down the businesses and industries associated with those freedoms.

Extreme conservative capitalism need not have restrictions on personal freedoms. The essence of extreme conservatism is a strict structure of moral authority. All members of society become grouped by strict definitions, and each group has absolute moral authority over all groups considered below it (ie. wealthy > middle class > poor > homeless or Board of Directors > CEO > VP's > Division heads > section managers > project managers > employees or Big Juju > Arch Mucky-mucks > High Mucky-mucks > Mucky-mucks > Priests > Parishoners > heretics, etc). This authority need not be legislated, most societies that functioned with systems of this type simply assumed that their way was the "natural" order of things (look at medieval european aristocracy or the Indian Caste system). In some cases, there is no "restriction of freedoms" as we know it; everyone was entitled to do as they pleased until told to stop by someone above them (usually this came into effect only upon commission of crimes or interfering in the superiors business).

In any event, government regulation doesn't preclude the existance of capitalism, just extreme capitalism. The degree of intervention dictates how far from extreme capitalism the society is (too much pushes it into socialism).