NationStates Jolt Archive

It is hard not to notice the Bush administrations constant use of biblical quotes and supposed Christian ethics to justify their actions, most of which are ruthlessly capitalist in nature. Well, I think they are forgetting one of the most important laws of Christianity/Judaism. One of the ten commandments clearly states that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor shall I covet anything that hath not been provided by the lord" Now, despite what you may think, the word "covet" simply means desire, so this commandment clearly states that we should not desire what is not ours, ever, but Capitalism thrives on and teaches us to desire what we do not have and to try to obtain it, therefore, Capitalism must be fundementaly incompatible with the Judeo-Christian faith.

It is hard not to notice the Bush administrations constant use of biblical quotes and supposed Christian ethics to justify their actions, most of which are ruthlessly capitalist in nature. Well, I think they are forgetting one of the most important laws of Christianity/Judaism. One of the ten commandments clearly states that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor shall I covet anything that hath not been provided by the lord" Now, despite what you may think, the word "covet" simply means desire, so this commandment clearly states that we should not desire what is not ours, ever, but Capitalism thrives on and teaches us to desire what we do not have and to try to obtain it, therefore, Capitalism must be fundementaly incompatible with the Judeo-Christian faith.

Capitalism does not tell you to desire things. Only how to go about getting them if you do desire them. And those commandments only referred to stuff that (in the culture were they were written) you cannot get, so quite compatible.

Not that I'd say the bible is any good source for nice political ideas ...

It is hard not to notice the Bush administrations constant use of biblical quotes and supposed Christian ethics to justify their actions, most of which are ruthlessly capitalist in nature. Well, I think they are forgetting one of the most important laws of Christianity/Judaism. One of the ten commandments clearly states that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor shall I covet anything that hath not been provided by the lord" Now, despite what you may think, the word "covet" simply means desire, so this commandment clearly states that we should not desire what is not ours, ever, but Capitalism thrives on and teaches us to desire what we do not have and to try to obtain it, therefore, Capitalism must be fundementaly incompatible with the Judeo-Christian faith.

Actually I think you are confusing Consumerism and Capitalism!

What you seem to be forgetting is that although the Christians are extremely vocal (Pat Robertson, the sonofabitch), the majority of the world is not Judeo-Christian (Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists et cetera) so the idea that capatalism is a sin doesn't really matter in todays society, as most people JUST DON'T CARE!

It is a Sin.

Actually I think you are confusing Consumerism and Capitalism!

Yeah.

*sigh* I know..... I know.

What you seem to be forgetting is that although the Christians are extremely vocal (Pat Robertson, the sonofabitch), the majority of the world is not Judeo-Christian (Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists et cetera) so the idea that capatalism is a sin doesn't really matter in todays society, as most people JUST DON'T CARE!

True. But the current US administration, as mentioned in the first line of the post, is Judeo-Christian.

It is hard not to notice the Bush administrations constant use of biblical quotes and supposed Christian ethics to justify their actions, most of which are ruthlessly capitalist in nature. Well, I think they are forgetting one of the most important laws of Christianity/Judaism. One of the ten commandments clearly states that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor shall I covet anything that hath not been provided by the lord" Now, despite what you may think, the word "covet" simply means desire, so this commandment clearly states that we should not desire what is not ours, ever, but Capitalism thrives on and teaches us to desire what we do not have and to try to obtain it, therefore, Capitalism must be fundementaly incompatible with the Judeo-Christian faith.

And communism, which one could argue against using the commandment "You shall not steal", is also incompatable with Christianity. What Christians must do is work for the "happy medium" so to speak. A world of private ownership, but also a world without uncontrollable greed.

Not that I'd say the bible is any good source for nice political ideas ...

For some people, it seems to be (see abortion, gay marriage, sex-ed classes)... yet these are usually the people advocating Capitalism.

so the idea that capatalism is a sin doesn't really matter in todays society, as most people JUST DON'T CARE!

When you consider that most people are getting poorer and poorer due to capitalism, I daresay they do care quite a bit that powerhouse economies are screwing up their little systems that worked fine in the past hundreds of years.

But I believe the entire "don't covet" was supposed to mean "don't be greedy and don't steal". Capitalism is (ideally at least) a win-win system that requires constant action. Of course most ideal things tend to never really happen...

" Capitalism is a sin "

I like the general idea, if only so I can walk into stores and threaten the staff with hell unless I get muchee discounts, chop-chop !

"And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"

And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;

HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." "

- Matthew 19:16-24

As for communism...

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need."

- Acts 2:44-45

As for communism...

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need."

- Acts 2:44-45

A Utopian society is much more viable in a small community. You cannot really expect to apply the same standards to a world with 6 billion inhabitants.

"And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"

And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;

HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." "

- Matthew 19:16-24

Easy for Jesus to say, he didn't own anything in the first place.

Anyway, the world got considerably poorer under the auspices of a strict christian regime, so I wouldn't go touting the bible as a font of economic wisdom.

As for communism...

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need."

- Acts 2:44-45

I shall be expecting 1/6,000,000,000th of the value of your wordly goods to be remitted to me forwith. ;)

Easy for Jesus to say, he didn't own anything in the first place.

Anyway, the world got considerably poorer under the auspices of a strict christian regime, so I wouldn't go touting the bible as a font of economic wisdom.

For you know that the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he was rich, yet for your sakes became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.

- 2 Corithians 8:9

Jesus had more than any of us can comprehend.

Anyway, the world got considerably poorer under the auspices of a strict christian regime, so I wouldn't go touting the bible as a font of economic wisdom.
Actually, with the exception of periods affected by catastrophic events (such as the fall of the Roman Empire, the Great Plague, etc.), the world has constantly been growing richer since the birth of human civilization 5000 years ago. Virtually all economic systems ever tried on a large scale have resulted in economic growth - it's just that some resulted in more growth than others. And, of course, growth isn't the only indicator of a good economy. It's possible for an economy to grow while the vast majority of the population live in abject poverty, due to massive inequalities in the distribution of wealth.

I shall be expecting 1/6,000,000,000th of the value of your wordly goods to be remitted to me forwith. ;)
That should be easy enough - the postage all by itself will cost more than 1/6,000,000,000th of the value of my wordly goods. :p

Actually, with the exception of periods affected by catastrophic events (such as the fall of the Roman Empire, the Great Plague, etc.), the world has constantly been growing richer since the birth of human civilization 5000 years ago. Virtually all economic systems ever tried on a large scale have resulted in economic growth - it's just that some resulted in more growth than others. And, of course, growth isn't the only indicator of a good economy. It's possible for an economy to grow while the vast majority of the population live in abject poverty, due to massive inequalities in the distribution of wealth.


Not really. For example, the standard of living in britian went into a sharp decline from about 400AD to 800AD. That's hardly a blip caused by natural disaster.

Things really didn't start to grow again until people re-discovered the rundiments of capitalism. (Alienation of real property, money and charging interest). By any measure, there was little or no economic growth under the strict christain feudalism. All people did was build cathedrals and castles.

And you know, communism arguably made China, and North Korea a lot poorer than they were. Also the new set-ups in southern africa don't seem to be working out that well.

In any case, I think everyone overlooks the fact that what made the west so unprecedentedly wealthy by historical standards, is liberal capitalism. And are there poor people in western countries today? Not by historical standards there are not. In fact capitalism has allowed us to redefine poverty upwards to the point where most poor people in the west have a better standard of living than the fairly wealth a few hundred years ago. Now that's hardly immoral.

I would like to know what the purpose of this discussion is.
We all know that the Bush Administration are the world's biggest hippocrates; so why are we trying to establish a well-known fact?

<snip>And, of course, growth isn't the only indicator of a good economy. It's possible for an economy to grow while the vast majority of the population live in abject poverty, due to massive inequalities in the distribution of wealth.<snip>
Which eventually happens in every capitalist economy. 10% of the people will always end up with 90% of the wealth; it's economically and historically proven.

Capitalism is the best economic system. It rewards hard work, intelligence, productivity, and concentual relationships. The system becomes soiled by the politics of socialism. Because socialism is tied to politics, any act by government is socialist. Government action forcibly takes property from the individual to give to the undeserving of society: lazy beggars.

"We need housing for the poor." The question in everyones mind should be why. The individual who needs a hand out does not deserve a hand out. The same falls on anyone with the mental compacity to overcome his hardships. If that person arises, he deserves a hand out. But he will not need a hand out because capitalism rewards his individual behavior.

The individual can only feel the needs of his self. Others do not experiance his hunger or his thoughts. The individual sole dominion over his own life. For any person to assume that dominion is immoral. Socialism is immoral in this way. To block an individual from his natural desire rots his mind and makes him weak, but this is the goal of the socialism to make him depend upon the state.

Socialism depends on politics. Politics depends on theft. Socialism is as immoral as thief.

Which eventually happens in every capitalist economy. 10% of the people will always end up with 90% of the wealth; it's economically and historically proven.

Five percent of the politicians will have 90% of the wealth in socialism.

The fact is people are getting wealthier in capitalist societies. The GDP of the world is getting bigger because of capitalism. I don't see socialism involved.

I'll recommend a book. "In Defense of Global Capitalism" by Johan Norberg. You can buy it on ebay or Barnes and Noble.com!

Meh,

Religion is not recognized by government, so your gripes are immaterial.

If the were relevant, I would point out that Bush's economic policies of massive government subsidising and spending would not be supported by the majority of capitalists.

It is hard not to notice the Bush administrations constant use of biblical quotes and supposed Christian ethics to justify their actions, most of which are ruthlessly capitalist in nature. Well, I think they are forgetting one of the most important laws of Christianity/Judaism. One of the ten commandments clearly states that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor shall I covet anything that hath not been provided by the lord" Now, despite what you may think, the word "covet" simply means desire, so this commandment clearly states that we should not desire what is not ours, ever, but Capitalism thrives on and teaches us to desire what we do not have and to try to obtain it, therefore, Capitalism must be fundementaly incompatible with the Judeo-Christian faith.

Actually it's "desire for anothers property" not "desire" alone. Or mere "desire of something that is not ours".... It is desire of something that actually belongs to another. (Not the exact same thing.)

Desiring to own a house, or have a wife, is not desire for SOMEONE ELSE's house, or SOMEONE ELSE's wife...

I would like to know what the purpose of this discussion is.
We all know that the Bush Administration are the world's biggest hippocrates; so why are we trying to establish a well-known fact?

What country are you from? If you are not American, come on over. Become a citizen and vote. Hell, I don't like Bush either. He has increased the size of government. I label him a state capitalist, which is fascism.

Capitalism is the best economic system. It rewards hard work, intelligence, productivity, and concentual relationships. The system becomes soiled by the politics of socialism. Because socialism is tied to politics, any act by government is socialist. Government action forcibly takes property from the individual to give to the undeserving of society: lazy beggars.

In practice: yes. In theory the main idea behind many "all are equal" philosophies is that everyone should be rewarded for the *effort* they make, even though "the best one can do" varies from person to person. So the hardworking surgeon is not considered to be more deserving of great rewards than the hardworking bricklayer; since both are hardworking. And a bricklayer blessed by nature with a great physique is simply *expected* to perform better than a less muscled man. People are expected to feel proud at a job well done - and being a lazy bum is still unacceptable.
Cooperation instead of competition in other words. Some ridicule the idea by comparing it with a race in which everyone is a winner - but they miss the point that people are not supposed to be racing against eachother in this philosophy.
In theory. In practice people seem unwilling to do the best they can for their fellow men without the extra motivation extra money provides.

Five percent of the politicians will have 90% of the wealth in socialism.

The fact is people are getting wealthier in capitalist societies. The GDP of the world is getting bigger because of capitalism. I don't see socialism involved.

I'll recommend a book. "In Defense of Global Capitalism" by Johan Norberg. You can buy it on ebay or Barnes and Noble.com!

Interesting concept except with a flaw.

Communism
all lived in vitual Poverty except the Politiburo and the Party. No one is able to advance at all.

Capitalism
Poverty is existant but a person can get out of poverty. Its difficult but can be very rewarding.

if i had a choice i would rather be in poverty under the capitalist. And for those who are quoting the bible im in dire need of a computer can i have yours? Mine is old and broken. :(

It is hard not to notice the Bush administrations constant use of biblical quotes and supposed Christian ethics to justify their actions, most of which are ruthlessly capitalist in nature. Well, I think they are forgetting one of the most important laws of Christianity/Judaism. One of the ten commandments clearly states that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor shall I covet anything that hath not been provided by the lord" Now, despite what you may think, the word "covet" simply means desire, so this commandment clearly states that we should not desire what is not ours, ever, but Capitalism thrives on and teaches us to desire what we do not have and to try to obtain it, therefore, Capitalism must be fundementaly incompatible with the Judeo-Christian faith.
Bush and his ilk are just the christian version of the taliban

One of the ten commandments clearly states that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor shall I covet anything that hath not been provided by the lord" Now, despite what you may think, the word "covet" simply means desire

Covert means more jelousy than desire. You can desire to have something but you are not nessecarly jelous.

Not really. For example, the standard of living in britian went into a sharp decline from about 400AD to 800AD. That's hardly a blip caused by natural disaster.
It's not a blip, but it was caused by the fall of the Roman Empire.

Things really didn't start to grow again until people re-discovered the rundiments of capitalism. (Alienation of real property, money and charging interest).
That's funny - there I was thinking that capitalism began in the 18th century. If you're going to redefine anything that uses the concepts of property, money and the charging of interest as "capitalism", then the Soviet Union was capitalist too...

By any measure, there was little or no economic growth under the strict christain feudalism. All people did was build cathedrals and castles.
First of all, Christian feudalism didn't come until after 800 AD - after Charlemagne, to be more exact. Before that, much of Europe was pagan and ruled by nomadic tribes.

And you know, communism arguably made China, and North Korea a lot poorer than they were.
First of all, that wasn't communism. Second of all, even North Korea is richer today than it was in the 1950's.

In any case, I think everyone overlooks the fact that what made the west so unprecedentedly wealthy by historical standards, is liberal capitalism.
No, what made the west so unprecedentedly wealthy by historical standards is the fact that western powers conquered and enslaved the whole world between the 16th and 20th centuries.

And are there poor people in western countries today? Not by historical standards there are not. In fact capitalism has allowed us to redefine poverty upwards to the point where most poor people in the west have a better standard of living than the fairly wealth a few hundred years ago. Now that's hardly immoral.
Most poor people in 1500 AD had a better standard of living than the fairly wealthy in 600 AD. Most poor people in 200 AD had a better standard of living than the fairly wealthy in 1000 BC. And the citizens of the Soviet Union were far wealthier and better off in 1975 than in 1925, for example.

Five percent of the politicians will have 90% of the wealth in socialism.
That did not happen, ever, anywhere.

Even if you consider the Soviet Union and other similar countries to have been "socialist", you are still wrong, because their politicians did not own nearly as much % of the total wealth as present-day capitalist businessmen.

The fact is people are getting wealthier in capitalist societies.
They were also getting wealthier in non-capitalist societies. As I pointed out before, Soviet citizens were much better off in 1975 than in 1925, for example.

Look, all I wanted to say is that the Bush admin. may highlight things in the bible that suit them, they forgot to mention one of the most important because it could be interpreted as a law against the unbridled consumerism and Lassiz-faire government that modern American Capitalism has created.

And to the guy who said that there should be no socialism because poor people don't deserve welfare, two words you might want to look up: HEARTLESS BASTARD

Laisezz-faire government in the US? What are you smoking, I want some.

Consumerism isn't capitalism.

Yes, Bush-ites conviniently take what they like in the Bible and ignore the rest, what else is new? Practically everyone does that.

Anyway, if capitalism is indeed a sin, I have news for you: All humans are sinners.

Bush and his ilk are just the christian version of the taliban

As a Bush supporter I wonder why am I missing out on all the fun. I've got a whole list of people I want to stone to death. I'd bury all opposition up to their necks (only to the waist for women) and throw rocks at their head.

Next I'll seize the real estate property from these uppity broads who think they're better than everyone else because they know how to read. Women don't need education. They are much happier living silent, behind burkas waiting to get pregnant again. And if they do get out of line maybe they do need their eyes blacked, or to be whipped in public in a soccor stadium as crowds watch.

Then I want to blow up any symbols of faith other than my own. Especially Buddhist art that's at least a thousand years old. Landmines would be cool too. We spread them everywhere. And Music...that evil vile music ban all music too. Stone the musicians! Stone the TV producers! I really pnder if there will be enough loose granite to hurl at the sinners.

It's obvious to anyone living in America that we are the Christian Taliban. Shaendra you are an idiot.

It's not a blip, but it was caused by the fall of the Roman Empire.


That's funny - there I was thinking that capitalism began in the 18th century. If you're going to redefine anything that uses the concepts of property, money and the charging of interest as "capitalism", then the Soviet Union was capitalist too...

*Rudiments* of capitalism. And was in existence before someone gave it a name. How do you think the Roman's or the Phonecians managed to build such extensive trading networks. Capitalism. I think the problem here is that you don't actually know what capitalism is.

First of all, Christian feudalism didn't come until after 800 AD - after Charlemagne, to be more exact. Before that, much of Europe was pagan and ruled by nomadic tribes.

I never said it didn't. Obviously the worst decline was during the nomadic tribes period. Though I hardly think much of Europe was "pagan". (Though now I think of it, the vikings were doing pretty well for themselves relative to the rest of Europe until they got Jesus)

Under Christian feudalism, there was no, or negative, economic growth. (That's right, England was poorer in 1350, than it was in 850, good job).

First of all, that wasn't communism. Second of all, even North Korea is richer today than it was in the 1950's.

Yet poorer than under the japanese in the 1930s, I mean, how in the hell do you pull that off.

The only communist country that ever managed any type of growth was the USSR, and frankly they only pulled that off using methods we could all do without. Indeed by some measures, (life expectancy, infant mortality &c), things were actually better under the Tsar. Of course it helps when you don't systematically slaughter tens of millions in the name of the revolution.

No, what made the west so unprecedentedly wealthy by historical standards is the fact that western powers conquered and enslaved the whole world between the 16th and 20th centuries.

Yeah, that swiss empire, totally huge man. And look at all the colonies Germany had overseas. I am sure it was the vast overseas holdings of the german empire that allowed it to become a Great Power at the turn of the twentieth century.

Communism doesn't work. It makes people poorer. Capitalism does not make people poorer. There have even been two experiments conducted that demonstrate it. (East v. West Germany, and North v. South Korea).

And don't fob me off saying communism has never really been tried, or that there has never really been a "proper" communist state, because until you can show someone a working model, it's just idle speculation.

Anyway, the majority of people like capitalism. You should respect that.




Most poor people in 1500 AD had a better standard of living than the fairly wealthy in 600 AD.

Not true.

Most poor people in 200 AD had a better standard of living than the fairly wealthy in 1000 BC.

True. Before Christianity I may add.

And the citizens of the Soviet Union were far wealthier and better off in 1975 than in 1925, for example.

Really, far wealthier? They saw nothing like the improvments in the standards of living that were witnessed in the west. A lot of them still lived in communal appartments.

As a Bush supporter I wonder why am I missing out on all the fun. I've got a whole list of people I want to stone to death. I'd bury all opposition up to their necks (only to the waist for women) and throw rocks at their head.

Next I'll seize the real estate property from these uppity broads who think they're better than everyone else because they know how to read. Women don't need education. They are much happier living silent, behind burkas waiting to get pregnant again. And if they do get out of line maybe they do need their eyes blacked, or to be whipped in public in a soccor stadium as crowds watch.

Then I want to blow up any symbols of faith other than my own. Especially Buddhist art that's at least a thousand years old. Landmines would be cool too. We spread them everywhere. And Music...that evil vile music ban all music too. Stone the musicians! Stone the TV producers! I really pnder if there will be enough loose granite to hurl at the sinners.

It's obvious to anyone living in America that we are the Christian Taliban. Shaendra you are an idiot.

Oh yes, like all Bush supporters you highlight only the worst parts of your opposition (I bet you didn't even know that the Taliban reduced Afganistans heroin production rates by over 70%) and just sit back and think you have it all figured out. :rolleyes:

Bush has always been bashed for doing stuff that almost everyone either had done or would have done.

If Capitalism is sin, than Communism is hell itself. Capitalism is people aquiring a better or worse way of life. You have a chance to succeed. You can even help those you want to help if you have the recources. It is one of the oldest forms of economy ever since it is a form of bartering. Instead of trading a dead deer for a fish and spear, you trade it for money. Communism works by stealing. The government steals all your money and forces you to share it with everyone. There are fewer good deeds to be done because even the wicked are forced to share. You are as poor as everyone else, no matter how hard you work.

Oh yes, like all Bush supporters you highlight only the worst parts of your opposition (I bet you didn't even know that the Taliban reduced Afganistans heroin production rates by over 70%) and just sit back and think you have it all figured out. :rolleyes:


The Taliban edicts enforced on the lives of Afghan women deny them their most fundamental human rights, indeed suffocate their very existence. Their lives were restricted to such an extent that these women were effectively reduced to silent ghosts.

Forced to wear a burqua the women of Afghanistan face harsh and archaic punishment, such as public flogging, if they are seen to be wavering from the dress code.

Employment for women had been outlawed, and they were denied access even to the most basic health services. Education for girls over the age of eight had been prohibited. While in their own homes, women must not be seen from the street, and may not step outside their homes unless accompanied by a male relative.

At every turn, even in the smallest details of life, women face mind-boggling restrictions. For example, they risk being beaten for laughing in public and were forbidden to “walk loudly,” and thus shoes which make noise had been outlawed.

It is the long arm and probing eyes of the so-called Ministry of the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, the Taliban’s “religious police,” that dictated the constraints which are so rigidly enforced.

This on-going exclusion from any activity deemed to be “un-Islamic” resulted in virtual house arrest for women. It is therefore unsurprising that a report by Physicians for Human Rights reveals that 97% of women in Afghanistan showed signs of major depression.

With conflict still raging in parts of the country, women live in constant fear of rape or abduction by Taliban soldiers. There are credible reports, received from women who have fled the country, that a number of Afghan women in danger zones are driven to commit suicide in order to avoid such a fate.

but don't forget everybody, they fought in the war against drugs...

Drugs should be legal. Great for making money! Who cares if it is bad for some because it is good for business.

Bush has always been bashed for doing stuff that almost everyone either had done or would have done.

If Capitalism is sin, than Communism is hell itself. Capitalism is people aquiring a better or worse way of life. You have a chance to succeed. You can even help those you want to help if you have the recources. It is one of the oldest forms of economy ever since it is a form of bartering. Instead of trading a dead deer for a fish and spear, you trade it for money. Communism works by stealing. The government steals all your money and forces you to share it with everyone. There are fewer good deeds to be done because even the wicked are forced to share. You are as poor as everyone else, no matter how hard you work.

I'm sorry but I just don't like that statement, capitalism breeds greed and petty induvidualism so none of a capitalist societys trampled will get much benefit from the system you espouse, the only reason there is barely decent welfare in western countries today is because of socialist visionaries who worked hard to win these meagre compensations from an otherwise cold and indifferent system.

And as for equating Communism to stealing, at least they "stole" those resources to share them equally among all people, the only reason communism doesn't work practically is because it is to easily exploited by unscrupulous induviduals, but if it could be made to work right it would be infinitly better than Capitalism.

Remember: sometimes the world will only work if you force it to.

Oh yes, like all Bush supporters you highlight only the worst parts of your opposition (I bet you didn't even know that the Taliban reduced Afganistans heroin production rates by over 70%) and just sit back and think you have it all figured out. :rolleyes:

s'true though.

And mussolini got the trains to run on time. And say what you like about hitler, he did get germany back on its feet. :rolleyes:

I think one thing is for sure, Jesus was not and never would of been a capitalist. If you believe the bible anyway.

The Taliban edicts enforced on the lives of Afghan women deny them their most fundamental human rights, indeed suffocate their very existence. Their lives were restricted to such an extent that these women were effectively reduced to silent ghosts.

Forced to wear a burqua the women of Afghanistan face harsh and archaic punishment, such as public flogging, if they are seen to be wavering from the dress code.

Employment for women had been outlawed, and they were denied access even to the most basic health services. Education for girls over the age of eight had been prohibited. While in their own homes, women must not be seen from the street, and may not step outside their homes unless accompanied by a male relative.

At every turn, even in the smallest details of life, women face mind-boggling restrictions. For example, they risk being beaten for laughing in public and were forbidden to “walk loudly,” and thus shoes which make noise had been outlawed.

It is the long arm and probing eyes of the so-called Ministry of the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, the Taliban’s “religious police,” that dictated the constraints which are so rigidly enforced.

This on-going exclusion from any activity deemed to be “un-Islamic” resulted in virtual house arrest for women. It is therefore unsurprising that a report by Physicians for Human Rights reveals that 97% of women in Afghanistan showed signs of major depression.

With conflict still raging in parts of the country, women live in constant fear of rape or abduction by Taliban soldiers. There are credible reports, received from women who have fled the country, that a number of Afghan women in danger zones are driven to commit suicide in order to avoid such a fate.

but don't forget everybody, they fought in the war against drugs...

And don't think for a second that certain hardline Christian fundemantalist factions of the Republican party wouldn't do similar things if given the chance.

The fact of the matter is there are people like that everywhere and if you don't want oppression on that scale, you have to look really hard to see where they are and what they are doing.

Other illegal activities under the George Bush,...I'm sorry I meant to say the Taliban.

promoting any religion other than Sunni Islam
wearing white shoes
pictures of women including family photos and portraits
kite flying
weather forecasting
women on picnics
not wearing a long beard
not painting the windows over if women lived in the house
not wearing your yellow idenitity symbol and ID card if you were Hindu
see through socks
kissing other dudes...they'd collapse a wall on you for that!

It is hard not to notice the Bush administrations constant use of biblical quotes and supposed Christian ethics to justify their actions, most of which are ruthlessly capitalist in nature. Well, I think they are forgetting one of the most important laws of Christianity/Judaism. One of the ten commandments clearly states that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor shall I covet anything that hath not been provided by the lord" Now, despite what you may think, the word "covet" simply means desire, so this commandment clearly states that we should not desire what is not ours, ever, but Capitalism thrives on and teaches us to desire what we do not have and to try to obtain it, therefore, Capitalism must be fundementaly incompatible with the Judeo-Christian faith.

Perhaps it is a sin to have a free market. But I'd much rather be a free sinner than an acquiescent saint. If you have been willing to open your eyes, you have seen what the alternative is: totalitarianism(USSR), or stagnated economic growth. France, the flagship of social democracy, has a gross domestic product of less than 1/11th of the United States, the world's largest capitalist society. This is no accident. Man was meant to be free in every single aspect of life. And when man is restricted, as one is in a socialist society, he founders.
Now, I don't know where in the world the individual who brought up this topic lives. I know there are a great many people who live in other countries who attend this site. However, we Americans are very unique in how we value not just our political freedom or our civil freedom but our ABSOLUTE freedom. We fought a war over this: The American Civil War. A common misconception not just in the US, but around the world, is that it was caused by the issue of slavery. That, however, is not necessarily true. At the time, very few supporters of the Confederacy owned slaves or were willing to die to keep the institution. It was not that the Union had come to stop slavery, it was that THEY HAD COME. If you do not learn anything else from reading this, realize this: An American will die before he lets someone else tell him what to do; even if it is in his best interest. This is our sin and our salvation. We, Americans can't help it, but we wouldn't if we could.
Lastly, before I rest my hands from all this damn typing, I want to try to perhaps see religion and Judeo-Christianity in a slightly different light. When I think of the ten commandments, and see them in front of a court-house, I don't see them necesarily as religious guidelines. I DO see them as the basis of our ever-changing view of how society should be run. If you read them, you will see one basic principle behind them all: The Golden Rule. "Do unto others as one would have others do to oneself." If you think about it, this is, in fact, the cornerstone of freedom. Is the Golden Rule much different from John Locke's statement of "LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS," on which the Declation of Independence is based? When Locke names these three inherent human rights, he is saying, "You have the right to do whatever the hell you want, PROVIDED THAT, you do not harm anyone through your actions."

- Pete K.

"We must ban government from our boardrooms, to loosen its stranglehold on America's business.
We must also ban government from our bedrooms, to loosen its stranglehold on America's genitals."

-Libertarian Platform-

That did not happen, ever, anywhere.

Even if you consider the Soviet Union and other similar countries to have been "socialist", you are still wrong, because their politicians did not own nearly as much % of the total wealth as present-day capitalist businessmen.


They were also getting wealthier in non-capitalist societies. As I pointed out before, Soviet citizens were much better off in 1975 than in 1925, for example.

Are you on drugs? Because I want to sell you some. Yes, socialism puts wealth into the hands of the state. Socialism and the state are the same. The difference between a businessman and a socialist is the businessman has a right to property. The socialist just takes it. Hmmm, just what a government is good at.

Yes, 1975! How many people died in that year because of communism.

This is stats from the time Stalin was in, not 1975. Gives a total of deaths caused by the USSR. From bureaucrash.com.

But, these are all statistics and hard to grasp. Compare my total of 62,000,000 for the Soviet Union and 43,000,000 for Stalin to the death from slavery of 37,000,000 during the 16th to the 19th century; or to the death of from 25,000,000 to 75,000,000 in the Black Death (bubonic plague), 1347-1351, that depopulated Europe.

Another way of looking at this is that the annual risk of a person under Soviet control being murdered by the regime was 1 out of 222. But, compare -- the annual risk of anyone in the world dying from war was 1 out of 5,556, from smoking a pack of cigarettes a day was 1 out of 278, from any cancer was 1 out of 357, or for an American to die in an auto accident was 1 out of 4,167.

And as for equating Communism to stealing, at least they "stole" those resources to share them equally among all people, the only reason communism doesn't work practically is because it is to easily exploited by unscrupulous induviduals, but if it could be made to work right it would be infinitly better than Capitalism.


It wouldn't work, because there is no price mechanism, so resources would never be properly allocated. You can't just guess where to put stuff you know.

And explain to me how what would fundamentally be a barter economy, among small communes, could ever produce a PC or a jet aircraft.

Until those two objections are answered, communism is just a silly fiction.

What country is socialist today?

What country is socialist today?

Depends upon how you define socialist. There are considerable polemics about that in the commie camp.

If you measure it by countries where government spending accounts for more than 50% of the economy, then several in Europe. France included.

If you define it as complete government control over a centrally planned economy then Cuba, North Korea &c. Of course this means that China is no longer socialist. (And to be fair it isn't anymore. What it has become however, is an open question, because it is not really a capitalist nation either.)

Nice earlier posts BTW.

Europe and Eurasia, who paid for your computer? Who is paying your bills now? Do you have a job?

Jobs are cool because you can buy neat stuff. This week besides eating out for lunch I bought: paid a month of karate class dues, a Todd McFarlane Conan PVC statue, I rented the movie Solaris, $24 in gas, a $30 inflatable pool for the kiddies and the other stuff was bills. The stuff mentioned is not very cool but when I buy a 1896 Broomhandle Mauser for $2000, $300 for a trampoline or eating steak instead of fast food...that's because I am more productive than someone who is not paid as well. Capitalism rewards effort. As humans, we need to be motivated.

When I graduated college I made under $10,000 a year. Six years later I broke $20,000. Now 9 years later I'm at $32,000 with about $200,000 invested in property. I worked harder and took more risk than the guy working at the gas station.

Make yourself better, make your economy better and study capitalism. If not, practice what you preach move to Darfur and join the pottery swap in the village square.

Other illegal activities under the George Bush,...I'm sorry I meant to say the Taliban.

promoting any religion other than Sunni Islam
wearing white shoes
pictures of women including family photos and portraits
kite flying
weather forecasting
women on picnics
not wearing a long beard
not painting the windows over if women lived in the house
not wearing your yellow idenitity symbol and ID card if you were Hindu
see through socks
kissing other dudes...they'd collapse a wall on you for that!

THE REPUBLICAN "CHRISTIAN" AGENDA FOR AMERICA

FOREIGN POLICY:
Recind membership in, as well as halt all military and financial contributions to, the United Nations, and evict the UN from the US.

ABOLISH:
Surgeon Generals office
Department of Energy
Department of Commerce and Labour
Department of Urban Housing and Development
Beureu of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Department of Education

THE ENIVIRONMENT:
Abolish the EPA and repeal Endangered species law

WOMENS RIGHTS:
Oppose all forms of abortion-even in cases of rape or incest

THE ECONOMY:
Abolish the IRS
Abolish the Dollar
Repeal minimum wage law

EDUCATION:
Support official Christian prayer in public schools
Oppose early childhood development programs
Introduce teaching based on biblical principals
Terminate bilingual education

ALL OF THESE POLICIES CAME FROM THE REPUBLICAN TEXAS GUBERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF GEORGE W BUSH

*Rudiments* of capitalism.
Those aren't rudiments of capitalism, those are rudiments of any non-barter economic system.

And was in existence before someone gave it a name. How do you think the Roman's or the Phonecians managed to build such extensive trading networks. Capitalism. I think the problem here is that you don't actually know what capitalism is.
So, in your view, trading = capitalism? Then the Soviet Union was capitalist, because it traded with other countries. So was China, and Cuba, and all the countries in Eastern Europe during the cold war... In fact, the only country that doesn't trade is North Korea.

Capitalism is the economic system that is based on private property over the means of production and equality of citizens before the law.

Neither of those two features are unique to capitalism (private property over the means of production also exists in feudalism, while equality before the law also exists in socialism and communism), but capitalism is the only system that combines both of those features.

I never said it didn't. Obviously the worst decline was during the nomadic tribes period. Though I hardly think much of Europe was "pagan". (Though now I think of it, the vikings were doing pretty well for themselves relative to the rest of Europe until they got Jesus)
Yes, looting, pillaging and murdering. Those wonderful, wonderful vikings...

Under Christian feudalism, there was no, or negative, economic growth. (That's right, England was poorer in 1350, than it was in 850, good job).
First of all, I need to point out that feudalism was hardly "Christian". It was far more un-Christian than capitalism, in fact, considering its complete disregard for such things as "love your neighbor as yourself". The strict social hierarchy of feudalism directly contradicts Jesus's egalitarian message.

But in feudalism, just like today, there were plenty of "Christian" hypocrites.

Yet poorer than under the japanese in the 1930s, I mean, how in the hell do you pull that off.
Again, you're drifting off into absurd claims here. Do you have any clue what the Japanese did in Korea in the 1930's? The word "genocide" comes to mind. Besides, there was a little something called World War 2 in between the 1930's and the 1950's, and another something called the Korean War in the 1950's. Whatever economy Korea had in the 30's, there wasn't anything left of it by the 50's...

The only communist country that ever managed any type of growth was the USSR...
Wrong. All Eastern European countries (including the Soviet Union) had good economic growth from the 1950's to the 1970's. The USSR itself achieved absolutely spectacular growth both during the 1930's and during the post-war reconstruction period.

The only "communist" countries that did rather badly in economic terms were China and North Korea - the former due to Mao's "great leap forward" and cultural revolution, and the latter due to Kim Il-Sung's sheer insanity.

Indeed by some measures, (life expectancy, infant mortality &c), things were actually better under the Tsar.
Wrong again. Life expectancy improved dramatically during the 1930's (yes, even if you count the victims of Stalin's purges), and infant mortality dropped. The wealth of the average Russian also increased significantly. Why do you think so many old Russians today are so nostalgic for the Stalin era?

Yeah, that swiss empire, totally huge man. And look at all the colonies Germany had overseas. I am sure it was the vast overseas holdings of the german empire that allowed it to become a Great Power at the turn of the twentieth century.
From the 16th to the 19th centuries, the wealthiest European countries were always those who had the biggest colonial empires (first Spain and Portugal, then France and Britain). By the late 19th century, however, this wealth began to "spill over" into the rest of Europe.

Communism doesn't work. It makes people poorer.
If by "communism" you mean the proper use of the word, which refers to a system with no private property and no state, run according to the principle "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs", then communism never existed.

If by "communism" you mean the Soviet Union & co, then you are just plain wrong, since historical facts show a clear improvement in the quality of life in most of those "communist" countries.

Capitalism does not make people poorer.
Bullshit. I know from personal experience what capitalism can do. After 15 years of capitalism, my country, Romania, is poorer now than it was in 1989 - and 1989 was one of the worst years of the "communist" period! Our current GDP is 80% of the GDP we had in 1989.

There have even been two experiments conducted that demonstrate it. (East v. West Germany, and North v. South Korea).
Is that why 20-30% of East Germans vote for the communists today? (see these election statistics: http://www.parties-and-elections.de/germany3.html)
Is that why Germans have voted Karl Marx as the 3rd greatest German of all time? (see here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3248516.stm)

And don't fob me off saying communism has never really been tried, or that there has never really been a "proper" communist state, because until you can show someone a working model, it's just idle speculation.
Give me a country for 20 years and I'll show you a working model. Any new idea is just "idle speculation" until someone implements it. Modern democracy was just "idle speculation" before the American and French revolutions.

Most poor people in 1500 AD had a better standard of living than the fairly wealthy in 600 AD.
Not true.
Didn't you just say a few posts ago that the worst part of the dark ages was before 400 and 800 AD? At least stop contradicting yourself.

Really, far wealthier? They saw nothing like the improvments in the standards of living that were witnessed in the west. A lot of them still lived in communal appartments.
Compared to what they had before, they saw a greater improvement in standards of living than in the west. The difference in standards of living between the USA and Russia in 1990 was far smaller than that same difference in 1917.

It is hard not to notice the Bush administrations constant use of biblical quotes and supposed Christian ethics to justify their actions, most of which are ruthlessly capitalist in nature.

Yes, I've done some rhetorical criticism on the president's artifacts. They often are centered around Christian beliefs, in the doxa they draw upon, in the metaphors and heirarchies creatied, in what common belief system is used. I agree that he attempts to identify his arguments with Christian beliefs.

One of the ten commandments clearly states that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor shall I covet anything that hath not been provided by the lord" Now, despite what you may think, the word "covet" simply means desire, so this commandment clearly states that we should not desire what is not ours, ever, but Capitalism thrives on and teaches us to desire what we do not have and to try to obtain it, therefore, Capitalism must be fundementaly incompatible with the Judeo-Christian faith.

So, since I'm a sinner and I don't have salvation, I shouldn't desire salvation?

I really don't think that anyone reads that commandment so strictly. Now, don't get me wrong, there are things in the Christian belief system that support more socialist policies (giving things to the poor, having compassion, etc.) However, there are also threads of capitalism, or self-determinism, which are in the Bible/Torah/whatever as well. The fact is that rhetorically the Christian belief system is so vast and well-adapted, that it cen be fashioned into an argument for and against just about any political action. That is, if the rhetor knows what he's doing.

THE REPUBLICAN "CHRISTIAN" AGENDA FOR AMERICA

FOREIGN POLICY:
Recind membership in, as well as halt all military and financial contributions to, the United Nations, and evict the UN from the US.

ABOLISH:
Surgeon Generals office
Department of Energy
Department of Commerce and Labour
Department of Urban Housing and Development
Beureu of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Department of Education

THE ENIVIRONMENT:
Abolish the EPA and repeal Endangered species law

WOMENS RIGHTS:
Oppose all forms of abortion-even in cases of rape or incest

THE ECONOMY:
Abolish the IRS
Abolish the Dollar
Repeal minimum wage law

EDUCATION:
Support official Christian prayer in public schools
Oppose early childhood developmint programs
Introduce teaching based on biblical principals
Terminate bilingual education

ALL OF THESE POLICIES CAME FROM THE REPUBLICAN TEXAS GUBERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF GEORGE W BUSH


I'm all for most of it! But I would sya all school should be private. Abortion I don't like, but I would encourage other froms of birth control.

When would socialism not depend on government? Can we really trust bureaucracy?

When would socialism not depend on government? Can we really trust bureaucracy?

Well, it's not exactly like corporations are a trustworthy bunch, either.

Europe and Eurasia, who paid for your computer? Who is paying your bills now? Do you have a job?

Jobs are cool because you can buy neat stuff.
Excuse me, are you under the strange impression that jobs don't exist in socialism or communism? :rolleyes:

...that's because I am more productive than someone who is not paid as well.
No, it's because there is a greater demand/supply ratio for your job on the labor market than for the job of that guy who is not paid as well.

Wages have nothing to do with productivity. They have everything to do with the supply and demand of the kind of work you do. If there is a big demand for your kind of work and few people do it (low supply), then you get a high wage. In other words, your wage depends more on what other people do (or do not do) than on what you do.

Well, it's not exactly like corporations are a trustworthy bunch, either.

At least business does not have sole dominion over your life. Government has control of your life becuase it is a monopoly.

At least business does not have sole dominion over your life. Government has control of your life becuase it is a monopoly.
On the other hand, the government is democratic, but businesses are not controlled by their workers.

The economic equivalent of a democratic government is a democratic economy - putting economic affairs under the control of the people. In other words, socialism.

And while a single business may not have control of your life, businesses in general do have control of your life, since you need to work for them in order to earn a living.

Never trust your neighbor or leader to do what is right, for human nature tends to make them do the opposite. This is true in all forms of government that have been around for a while. Russia can be described as corrupt. So can Iran, France, or the USA. Afterall, don't people control those governments? Communism was supposed to end corruption. It did the exact opposite. People didn't give as much. The government stole the fruits of their labor for "equality over fairness". The leaders also made communism have dictators in order to keep capitalism out. Capitalism breeds greed. Communism relies on the government stealing. In capitalism, there have been many people who went from that poor guy down the street to millionaires and billionaires. All they needed was luck, a little help, and determination. The man who created Wal-mart wasn't a rich guy when he started out. He came up with the concept of lower prices. That concept made him the richest man in the world, even after all the people who tried to halt his progress. Of course, he isn't the richest guy anymore because he has been dead for a while. Bill Gates was a nobody. Look at him now. Those are just two examples of how capitalism is better than communism. Capitalism allows for such progress to be made. They didn't rely on government handouts. Bill Gates and Wal-mart guy relied on themselves to get them from nobodies to rich guys. Case in point, the only one who you can trust to get you some success is yourself. You can't trust your neighbor to make you rich. You can't trust politicians to do the right thing. Even in the world of the homeless, those who go around collecting cans, cleaning windshields, and sanding in the hot sun for hours carrying that famous sign of the poor are better off than those who don't do anything.

It is hard not to notice the Bush administrations constant use of biblical quotes and supposed Christian ethics to justify their actions, most of which are ruthlessly capitalist in nature. Well, I think they are forgetting one of the most important laws of Christianity/Judaism. One of the ten commandments clearly states that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor shall I covet anything that hath not been provided by the lord" Now, despite what you may think, the word "covet" simply means desire, so this commandment clearly states that we should not desire what is not ours, ever, but Capitalism thrives on and teaches us to desire what we do not have and to try to obtain it, therefore, Capitalism must be fundementaly incompatible with the Judeo-Christian faith.

I think this is possibly the most flawed logic I have ever witnessed in my short 18 years on this earth. It's good to know that you can interpret the Bible and twist it into saying "If you want something, its sin." Think about it, what do you want when you're hungry? Is it a sin to be hungry? or lonely? or thirsty? No, it's not. It is sinful if one was to stare at his friends wife and dwell on how he wants her sexually, or emotionally. This is very idotic. I'm sorry, I don't like being mean, but geez. Wipe you're butt before you talk out of it next time.

I have a choice to work for a business. If I don't like the work at x company, I can work at y,z,j, or k. I may be able to work at 100 different companies. I don't have a choice in what government I have. You do not have a choice when you vote. You have to take what the masses want. For example, I did not vote for George Bush but he is president against my wishes.

Capitalism gives choice. I can choose who to work for, or I can create my own business and have others work for me. The only way to do that in socialism is to be a bureaucrat.

It sure is. Capitalism is based on capital: gaining it and controlling it. Jesus says that the love of money (not money itself, mind you) is the root of all sorts of evil. And if capitalism is anything, it the an economic arrangement built around the love of money

Those aren't rudiments of capitalism, those are rudiments of any non-barter economic system.

So, in your view, trading = capitalism? Then the Soviet Union was capitalist, because it traded with other countries. So was China, and Cuba, and all the countries in Eastern Europe during the cold war... In fact, the only country that doesn't trade is North Korea.

No, it doesn't, because I included as one of the rudiments, alienation of real property. None of those countries you name have it, Rome and the phonecians did. You could also toss in public enforcement of private contracts, which also separates Rome from the aforementioned.

Capitalism is the economic system that is based on private property over the means of production and equality of citizens before the law.

It also requires alienation of real property, and government enforcement of private contracts. (Amongst other things). And I have never understood what is meant by "the means of production." Are you refering to two hands, a strong back, a decent head on your shoulders. Because those are the means of production. And since slavery has been outlawed (thanks to capitalism, I may add) no-one can own those. It's all about wealth creation

Neither of those two features are unique to capitalism (private property over the means of production also exists in feudalism, while equality before the law also exists in socialism and communism), but capitalism is the only system that combines both of those features.

Yes, but the contract/property thing is unique to capitalism. Under feudalism, real property was not transferable as between individuals, nor is it under communism. Nor, under either system could private contracts be enforced thorough the courts.


Yes, looting, pillaging and murdering. Those wonderful, wonderful vikings...

They were primarily traders, explorers and farmers. They have a bad rap because they burned down a few christian monastaries.


First of all, I need to point out that feudalism was hardly "Christian". It was far more un-Christian than capitalism, in fact, considering its complete disregard for such things as "love your neighbor as yourself". The strict social hierarchy of feudalism directly contradicts Jesus's egalitarian message.

But in feudalism, just like today, there were plenty of "Christian" hypocrites.

It has the blessing of the Pope, therefore it was christian. The pope also frowned upon money lending and efficient capital markets. Thus keeping everyone poor.


Again, you're drifting off into absurd claims here. Do you have any clue what the Japanese did in Korea in the 1930's? The word "genocide" comes to mind. Besides, there was a little something called World War 2 in between the 1930's and the 1950's, and another something called the Korean War in the 1950's. Whatever economy Korea had in the 30's, there wasn't anything left of it by the 50's...

Korea was never a theater of action in World War II, it had been a Japanese possesion since the end of World War I. No major battles were fought there. Also, the claim of genocide is vastly overstated. I am not saying the Japanese were good, I am just pointing out that things were better in the 1930s than now for the North Koreans. At the very least, there was not the amount of widespread starvation, huge concentration camps and the rest that there is today. After all, Japan viewed it as a protectorate.

And south korea suffered just as much, and look where they are today. Clearly capitalism does work, and work well.

Wrong. All Eastern European countries (including the Soviet Union) had good economic growth from the 1950's to the 1970's. The USSR itself achieved absolutely spectacular growth both during the 1930's and during the post-war reconstruction period.

Are you seriously suggesting that the eastern bloc had good economic growth post WWII. That is just facially ridiculous. How are you measuring that anyway, did they halve the bread lines, or something, during that period.


The only "communist" countries that did rather badly in economic terms were China and North Korea - the former due to Mao's "great leap forward" and cultural revolution, and the latter due to Kim Il-Sung's sheer insanity.

They all did badly, compared to the west.

Wrong again. Life expectancy improved dramatically during the 1930's (yes, even if you count the victims of Stalin's purges), and infant mortality dropped. The wealth of the average Russian also increased significantly. Why do you think so many old Russians today are so nostalgic for the Stalin era?

This was addressed in an earlier post.


From the 16th to the 19th centuries, the wealthiest European countries were always those who had the biggest colonial empires (first Spain and Portugal, then France and Britain). By the late 19th century, however, this wealth began to "spill over" into the rest of Europe.

What do you mean, spill over? It didn't spill over, it was *created*. The germans took some empty fields, and undug mines, did some work, and turned them into heavy industry. Britian had already outstripped spain by the begining of the nineteenth century - enough so it could rescue spain from Napolean - without having any real profitable colonies at that point.

If by "communism" you mean the proper use of the word, which refers to a system with no private property and no state, run according to the principle "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs", then communism never existed.

And it never will, can't be done. All you'll do is create a needs market, and it will become a race to the bottom.

If by "communism" you mean the Soviet Union & co, then you are just plain wrong, since historical facts show a clear improvement in the quality of life in most of those "communist" countries.

At what cost, was my point. I did conceed that there was good GDP growth in the USSR, under stalin. After Stalin, things were moved around a bit. But in any case, growth, and improvment in standards of living were anemic.


Bullshit. I know from personal experience what capitalism can do. After 15 years of capitalism, my country, Romania, is poorer now than it was in 1989 - and 1989 was one of the worst years of the "communist" period! Our current GDP is 80% of the GDP we had in 1989.

Romania is not capitalist. It's a failed state. Get to work on property rights and a clean court system, the rest will take care of itself.


Is that why 20-30% of East Germans vote for the communists today? (see these election statistics: )
Is that why Germans have voted Karl Marx as the 3rd greatest German of all time? (see here: )

Are you actually saying that living standards in east germany were higher than in west germany during the soviet era? That is simply not true. As to why old people vote the way they do, it's always been a mystery to me.


Give me a country for 20 years and I'll show you a working model. Any new idea is just "idle speculation" until someone implements it. Modern democracy was just "idle speculation" before the American and French revolutions.

Bah, representative democracy had been around for over a thousand years at that point. And in any case, the sucessful revolution, (the US) was not really about modern democracy. It's not like much actually changed vastly with independence.


Didn't you just say a few posts ago that the worst part of the dark ages was before 400 and 800 AD? At least stop contradicting yourself.

I did, and I am not. I was pointing out that there wasn't so much economic growth that a poor person in 1350, had the same standard of living as a fairly wealth person in 600. There was improvement, but not so much that life was not still basically shit for everyone. Including most nobles.

Compared to what they had before, they saw a greater improvement in standards of living than in the west. The difference in standards of living between the USA and Russia in 1990 was far smaller than that same difference in 1917.

1917, is hardly a good year for reference. That's when the communists embarked upon thier first killing spree.

I would say to be fair, you would have to compare, 1900 to 1900. And if you look at "How the Other half lives" about US poverty, you'll see the difference is marked.

Never trust your neighbor or leader to do what is right, for human nature tends to make them do the opposite.
And that is precisely why we need democracy to keep the government in check. As a communist, I don't trust the government to serve the people. I trust the people to follow their own interests, and use their democratic rights to force the government to serve them.

The leaders also made communism have dictators in order to keep capitalism out.
Indeed - the greatest mistake in history.

Capitalism breeds greed. Communism relies on the government stealing.
"Government stealing" is only required once, when communism is first established, in order to confiscate the property of the rich. If you think that's immoral, remember that the same "government stealing" was used to establish capitalism itself - it was necessary to confiscate the property of the feudal lords and aristocrats.

In capitalism, there have been many people who went from that poor guy down the street to millionaires and billionaires.
"Many"? There are millions of people on the street, and only a few thousand millionaires. Even if every millionaire is a self-made man who started out on the street, that puts the success rate at around 1/1000.

Besides, in Ancient Rome, it was possible for slaves to win their freedom and even become very rich. Does that justify slavery? Of course not.

All they needed was luck, a little help, and determination. The man who created Wal-mart wasn't a rich guy when he started out. He came up with the concept of lower prices. That concept made him the richest man in the world, even after all the people who tried to halt his progress. Of course, he isn't the richest guy anymore because he has been dead for a while. Bill Gates was a nobody. Look at him now. Those are just two examples of how capitalism is better than communism.
And for each of these examples, there are hundreds of counter-examples. For each poor man who works hard and becomes rich, there are hundreds of poor people who work just as hard and stay poor, because they never had the luck or the opportunity to get rich.

Capitalism allows for such progress to be made. They didn't rely on government handouts. Bill Gates and Wal-mart guy relied on themselves to get them from nobodies to rich guys.
And who did Paris Hilton rely on to make herself rich? It wasn't the government, and it sure as hell wasn't herself. It was her rich daddy.

Bill Gates's children (assuming he has any) will be billionaires. For every rich man who gets rich on his own, there are others (his own children, for one thing) who cannot be said under any circumstances to deserve their wealth.

And communism, which one could argue against using the commandment "You shall not steal", is also incompatable with Christianity. What Christians must do is work for the "happy medium" so to speak. A world of private ownership, but also a world without uncontrollable greed.

communism isnt about theft, though. you cant have theft without property, and you cant have property without a base of violence or threats of violence, so getting rid of the idea of property wouldnt really be theft, more the elimination of it.

and capitalism and consumerism, if they are not one, need each other otherwise they dont exist.

I have a choice to work for a business. If I don't like the work at x company, I can work at y,z,j, or k. I may be able to work at 100 different companies. I don't have a choice in what government I have.
Yes you do. You can move to another country. There is a world market in governments, my friend...

You do not have a choice when you vote. You have to take what the masses want. For example, I did not vote for George Bush but he is president against my wishes.
Companies also have to produce what the masses want, or they'll go bankrupt.

Capitalism gives choice. I can choose who to work for, or I can create my own business and have others work for me. The only way to do that in socialism is to be a bureaucrat.
You can choose your line of work in socialism just like you can choose it in capitalism. You are only forced to change your job if you really suck at it. In capitalism you get fired if you suck at doing your job.

communism isnt about theft, though. you cant have theft without property, and you cant have property without a base of violence or threats of violence, so getting rid of the idea of property wouldnt really be theft, more the elimination of it.

and capitalism and consumerism, if they are not one, need each other otherwise they dont exist.

Human nature dictates that they have. Ownership is a common desire. To deny ownership is to deny yourself.

Changing the definition of property will not change the fact that it is theft. I own my work, my land, my money, and my body. If you take that which I own, you take me. This is slavery.

To covet something is to want something so badly, you'll use any means to obtain it.

How many times are people going to say that working for your living (capitalism) is materialism? The Bible prefers capitalism...why else would there be "Thou Shalt Not Steal?" <--Implies that we should never use socialism/communism

Yes you do. You can move to another country. There is a world market in governments, my friend...


Companies also have to produce what the masses want, or they'll go bankrupt.


You can choose your line of work in socialism just like you can choose it in capitalism. You are only forced to change your job if you really suck at it. In capitalism you get fired if you suck at doing your job.

All governments are the same. They rely on force.

Yep, companies do produce what people want. I use what I want daily. I have a choice!

What you are saying is that socialism depends on the state. What if the state sucks? What if the people don't have enough knowledge to vote in a productive govenment. I at the mercy of the whims of government in socialism.

I got this cool new product. At least it is new and coll to me. I did not know I wanted it. It was a mint mocha. I got something I wanted without knowing I wanted it. Would socialism give me this?

Human nature dictates that they have. Ownership is a common desire.
Human nature involves such things as the desire to eat, sleep, drink, have children, etc. "Property" and "ownership" are abstract concepts that didn't even exist until some 5000 years ago.

I, for example, have no desire to own anything. In the capitalist society that I live in, it is necessary for me to own things in order to live, but if someone asks me to borrow one of my things, I'll gladly let him have it.

Changing the definition of property will not change the fact that it is theft.
Truer words have never been spoken. :) Property is theft.

I own my work, my land, my money, and my body. If you take that which I own, you take me. This is slavery.
So if I punch the wall of your house, you feel physical pain, yes? :rolleyes:

For your information, slavery is a form of property.

But let me explain just why private property is illegitimate: How is property created? By working to change previously-existing property in some way. Eventually, if we trace back the source of any object, we come to natural resources and the work that was used to transform those natural resources into that object.

Now, we can all agree that a person is entitled to "own" his work, but what about natural resources? Natural resources come from land. Thus, property over natural resources comes down to property over land. And if we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

So, to put it in capitalist-speak: All property was created through the illegitimate use of force. That is why private property is illegitimate.

The Bible prefers capitalism...why else would there be "Thou Shalt Not Steal?" <--Implies that we should never use socialism/communism
Really? Then how do you explain Acts 2:44-45?

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need."

The early Christians actually created the first known communist society in history...
You may think that socialism or communism are "theft", but Jesus and the Apostles obviously didn't. In fact, private property itself could be rightfully considered equivalent to theft (see my explanation above).

Capitalism rules.

If I was a homeless unemployed beggar living in a slum I'd probably have some different thoughts about that, but I don't! And you people praise "wonderful" socialism so lavishly, go ahead and visit Eastern Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Ukraine... Don't need to name them all but go ahead and ask them how FUN socialism was and how everybody wanted to live in a nation built after any Western-European rolemodel.

I dare you to go there and ask a random person how well those 5 year plans worked. And how nice it was to be followed by the STASI or any other secret service around the clock.

All governments are the same. They rely on force.
That's like saying that all life forms (for example, a human and a bacteria) are the same because they are made up of cells. Having a few basic features in common does not make two things "the same".

Different governments have different laws - including different taxes, for one thing.

Yep, companies do produce what people want. I use what I want daily. I have a choice!
Of course you do. Capitalism gives choices to those who have the money to pay for them. The more money you have, the more choices capitalism gives you. And the less money you have, the fewer choices capitalism gives you.

What you are saying is that socialism depends on the state. What if the state sucks?
Socialism depends on the state in the same way that capitalism depends on corporations. Sure, the state might not always give you what you want, but neither do capitalist corporations. Unlike with corporations, however, you can actually control the state through your voting power.

What if the people don't have enough knowledge to vote in a productive govenment. I at the mercy of the whims of government in socialism.
No more than you are at the mercy of the whims of the market in capitalism. At least the government has checks and balances and is under the control of the people.

And you people praise "wonderful" socialism so lavishly, go ahead and visit Eastern Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Ukraine... Don't need to name them all but go ahead and ask them how FUN socialism was and how everybody wanted to live in a nation built after any Western-European rolemodel.
I don't need to visit Eastern Europe. I live there. I'm Romanian.

And you're right, we did want capitalism back in the 80's. Then we got what we wanted, and we understood the meaning of the phrase "be careful what you wish for". We are worse off now than during the worst years of the "communist" period.

The Russians have a great joke on the subject:

Q: What did the capitalists do in 15 years that the communists couldn't do in 75 years?
A: Made communism look good.

Capitalism works for me. I'll quote Dave, "I'm rich bitches!" ;)

You vote for business by what you buy. It is good to have money and good to have choice. I don't have to depend on the government because I am rich!

Down with socialism. Eat the poor. :mp5:

Not all of Christianity rejects acquiring vast amounts of wealth. See: Calvinism.

No more than you are at the mercy of the whims of the market in capitalism. At least the government has checks and balances and is under the control of the people.

Checks and balances my ass. Once one organization has all the goddamn power in the country you might as well stick your head between your legs and kiss those "checks and balances" goodbye. THanks for the laugh.

At any rate, the thing most people forget when engaging in this inevitable argument is this: politics is the business of power. Whether you're capitalist or communist, the prospect of controlling the entirety of the nation's assets and commodities will always appeal to a certain type of person. It doen't generally matter what kind of system you use, these same kinds of people will be in power either way and the tendancy for these people [as has been shown throughout human history] is to consolidate and increase their power through any available means.

Clearly this is why we should grant the government as little power as possible, since they're the ones with the guns and scary tanks.

(...)Hmmm so you're basicly saying that sending dozens of people to the gulags (russian name for concentration camp, mind you) in Siberia is better than capitalism? That's a bold statement, and quite possibly, offensive to those who survived the camps back there. So you like empty "super"markets, a secret police, a Ceausescu and their idea of socialism? Equality for all? Don't make me laugh. Communism and socialism never worked and will never work. Humans want more then others, greed is a powerful thing that thrives many in this world. Socialists included. You cannot ban money, one of the oldest and most cherished possessions on the globe. People will take the lives of other people for it, happened in 3000 BC and it will happen in 4000 AD. You cannot ban a thing so powerful as money, people want more.

I also have a joke. Kind of. It's more like telling truth about communism and how the party leaders all enriched themselves at the expense of the worker. Whenever there are people in charge, people will demand more. More of everything.

More = More.

Q: What is most self-serving kind of ideology on the planet?
A: Communism.

I don't need to visit Eastern Europe. I live there. I'm Romanian.

And you're right, we did want capitalism back in the 80's. Then we got what we wanted, and we understood the meaning of the phrase "be careful what you wish for". We are worse off now than during the worst years of the "communist" period.

The Russians have a great joke on the subject:

Q: What did the capitalists do in 15 years that the communists couldn't do in 75 years?
A: Made communism look good.

Move! Come to America! Have you been here?