Why I believe capitalism is morally wrong and evil...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Calc II
Are you generalizing it as all philosophical scholar?

No, just the ones Sava mentioned as his basis.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

Originally posted by Calc II
and finally, capitalism works only when two parties agree. No one can really force you a contract. (well sometimes you might feel like your forced to suck up the contract, but still you have a choice!) I'd hate to go all economist, laisez faire, conservative, republican talkish, but big government is a big no no!

Reality is not so black and white. To support yourself and your family is not an issue of choice, it is an issue of necessity.

huh?

[monkspider]

A fallacy that I see many here engaging in is setting up the old strawman version of Commmunism that guarantees absolute equality of condition to even the most lazy or unintelligent members of society. You can search the tomes of Marx or Engels or Luxembourg or any of the major socialist thinkers and never find any passages referring to equality of condition. It is true that we want to reduce the gap between the haves and have nots, and generally improve the conditions of the poor and so on and so forth, but nowhere is equality condtion mentioned, or even implied really.

In any event, with all this talk of the morality of capitalism, and how it is nothing more than just the fundamentals of economics and so forth. As Christian, there are a number of things to find apprehensible about capitalism. Greed, exploitation, violence, the strong swallowing the weak, and so on. Without these things capitalism would collapse with fierce frequency. Communism is built on true christan values. Sharing, brotherhood, charity, and so on. It is interesting how the right tends to populated by the strongest capitalists, as well as the most fundamentalist Christian elements of society. It is a bit of a tragedy really.
If no one else, Jesus will lead the revolution when he returns.

[Zero]

oh i got it. but we're talking about capitalism. not supporting family. thats a differen contract!

EDIT: in addition to have a family is a choice that has been made, and to support the family is not a choice but a consequence that follows with that contract. Thus, ur arguement falters.

2nd EDIT: Even going further you said supporting family is not a choice but necessity but you are fully capable of stop supporting your family anytime. You cna make that choice even when you entered the contract to have a family. Then you will have to face the consequence of having broken the contract that was created when you decided to have a family. (losing custody could be one example and maybe your children will not recognize u stuff like that)

[Zero]

Originally posted by monkspider
A fallacy that I see many here engaging in is setting up the old strawman version of Commmunism that guarantees absolute equality of condition to even the most lazy or unintelligent members of society. You can search the tomes of Marx or Engels or Luxembourg or any of the major socialist thinkers and never find any passages referring to equality of condition. It is true that we want to reduce the gap between the haves and have nots, and generally improve the conditions of the poor and so on and so forth, but nowhere is equality condtion mentioned, or even implied really.

In any event, with all this talk of the morality of capitalism, and how it is nothing more than just the fundamentals of economics and so forth. As Christian, there are a number of things to find apprehensible about capitalism. Greed, exploitation, violence, the strong swallowing the weak, and so on. Without these things capitalism would collapse with fierce frequency. Communism is built on true christan values. Sharing, brotherhood, charity, and so on. It is interesting how the right tends to populated by the strongest capitalists, as well as the most fundamentalist Christian elements of society. It is a bit of a tragedy really.
If no one else, Jesus will lead the revolution when he returns.

Charity is a action done out of free will not a requirement. If your truly a Christian You'd feel the same way and thus be opposed to Communistic idea. You wouldn't need a doctrine to share wealth if everybody was altruistic.

Only setting that communism seems to work is in families.

[Provost Harrison]

False prophets are not a stable base for any form of sociopolitical system.

But you are right, the principle of communism is that people work because it is what is expected and to do otherwise would not be socially acceptable. I mean it is similar under the present system where someone who is a permanent bum is looked down upon. Of course such a system, by necessity, would provide a system of employment that is more rewarding without the overt exploitation that exists at the moment, and a higher level of empowerment and direction. It is disenfranchisement with the world of work and the frustration that I cite as one of the major reasons for people who don't want to work. Peer pressure is a significant factor in getting people to do the right thing, and that is, every person doing his best to contribute to society.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Calc II


Charity is a action done out of free will not a requirement. If your truly a Christian You'd feel the same way and thus be opposed to Communistic idea. You wouldn't need a doctrine to share wealth if everybody was altruistic.

Only setting that communism seems to work is in families.

Of course, you don't need a doctrine such as communism to share wealth with the needy. But just because you don't need one, doesn't mean that you shouldnt' support one that advances christian principles.
Saying that I would be opposed to Communism, which translates as christian principles, simply because I'm a "truly a christan" is simply strange logic, even if perhaps well-meaning.

[Stefu]

If no one else, Jesus will lead the revolution when he returns.

No, that's Che-sus.

[DinoDoc]

For charity to have any meaning it should come freely from the heart, otherwise it is simply well-meaning extortion which is hardly a Christian principle.

[Zero]

absolutely mandating or even demanding sharing of wealth is non-christian and even for non-christians evil!

[Lefty Scaevola]

otherwise it is simply well-meaning extortion which is hardly a Christian principle. [/QUOTE]

Such extortion is commonly practiced by christian churches (property owning ones, anyway) on their neighbors and community.

[Zero]

the one tenth offering thing is not mandated... I will not be excommunicated by a pope if I go to chapel and dont submit my 10% of salary. Tho people might give me evil eyes (which is wrong too!)

[Zero]

this got buried away while i was editting

oh i got it. but we're talking about capitalism. not supporting family. thats a differen contract!

EDIT: in addition to have a family is a choice that has been made, and to support the family is not a choice but a consequence that follows with that contract. Thus, ur arguement falters.

2nd EDIT: Even going further you said supporting family is not a choice but necessity but you are fully capable of stop supporting your family anytime. You cna make that choice even when you entered the contract to have a family. Then you will have to face the consequence of having broken the contract that was created when you decided to have a family. (losing custody could be one example and maybe your children will not recognize u stuff like that)

[monkspider]

Well if that were true Calc, that would be an indictment of the entire taxation system as we know it! After all, what are taxes, but pooling together wealth for the various collective good.

In any event, reducing state-sponsered christian principles to "extortion" or even "evil" simply because it is sponsored by the state is a rather strange premise.
While it is true that sharing would be, to a degree, "mandated" (ooooh, such a spooky word) it doesn't change the fact that this mandated sharing would take place in a system built on christian principles. Certainly it would be better to support a system where christan values are virtually "mandated" rather than a system where unchristan values are virtually "mandated", no?

I politely ask that you join us commies today Dino D, and throw off the shackles of sinful capitalism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by monkspider
In any event, reducing state-sponsered christian principles to "extortion" or even "evil" simply because it is sponsored by the state is a rather strange premise.

If charity, as you call it, is to have any meaning for the person doing it. Should the act be of thier own freewill rather than through State coercion? I'd say that the more Christian stance is Libertarianism.