Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Etagloc, Jun 18, 2017.
Is Capitalism Evil?
If so, why?
It's evil. It encourages greed and is extremely exploitative. Money matters more than life in a capitalist world. I doubt there would be so much sickness and war if they weren't so profitable.
I ask that question and you JUST HAPPEN to have this thing already written. Mhm. Be real. You must be the one who has the time machine and is responsible for the Mandela Effect.
eh..... I looked at it. I mean I've heard it before. I think we should tear apart the social system and build a new one. There were Indian tribes who had been practicing a sort of "Communism" since before Europeans came to the Americas. How can we say Communism is doomed to fail because humans but we don't say Capitalism is doomed to fail because humans?
I think there is no question that the present system is evil, must be torn down and replaced with something. The real question is not whether or not the present social order should be torn down and replaced but what it should be replaced with.
I don't get the weird alliances this world makes. I don't think get the strange alliance between Christianity and the status quo. The US government is of the devil. I don't care what Paul said. If Paul said "grass is blue", I'm not going to go along with him when I can plainly see that grass is green.
What is it about what you said that only applies to Communism? When I say Communism, I mean it has been implemented successfully and it is possible to implement a form of it successfully. There are indigenous people who implemented it and it's been done.... I think I've read that even in pre-colonial Africa there were forms of what we might today call socialism or communism. But anyways, all the stuff you said seems to apply to Capitalism. You sounded to me like you were describing Capitalism with your fat cats. I guess there'd be fat cats either way but in that case how is that an indictment of Communism rather than neither or both?
The problems with capitalism are always the fat cats on top. The workers don't want to go to school to become doctors only to make the same wage as an electrician while the fat cats on top live like kings. It creates a breach in trust.
The leader has to be a servant to all for capitalism to work. Jesus already proved he was.
No sinful man can lead a capitalist government. The evil trickles down and everyone ends up getting discouraged.
A society based on greed doesn't sound remotely Christian. If Jesus came and started a new government, I think there would be a massive redistribution of wealth and resources. I don't think he would have been cool with a bunch of people being homeless while others people have billions. It's as though the US military has infinite money and I'm a crazy utopian because I think we could fix a lot of problems if we just spent a fraction of that money helping people. We have all this power and technology yet we're told we must accept the established system because this is the best it can be? I simply don't believe that. I do think one day the present social order will fall and a new one will be established.
How is that different from a Capitalist fat cat?
Also, if you look up the term fat cat this is the sort of thing you will find
when we're talking about "fat cats" we're usually talking about fat cats within a capitalist system, as this was the original use and the term originated in the United States to describe rich business men and men like that- more like Andrew Carnegie or Rockefeller than Castro- Castro didn't come about until way later
"The word was first used in the 1920s in the United States to describe rich political donors.
The term's coinage for political purposes has been attributed to Frank Kent, a writer for the Baltimore Sun whose essay "Fat Cats and Free Rides" appeared in the American Mercury, a magazine of commentary run by H. L. Mencken. Kent wrote:
“ A Fat Cat is a man of large means and no political experience who having reached middle age, and success in business, and finding no further thrill ... of satisfaction in the mere piling up of more millions, develops a yearning for some sort of public honor and is willing to pay for it. The machine has what it seeks, public honor, and he has the money the machine needs."
So rather than actually addressing the extremely valid points made in the video, you simply call them propaganda. That's the very definition of an ad hominem.
Not only does a two-second look at Wikipedia confirm that you are removing the term "fat cat" very far from it's original, capitalistic (not communistic) context but what you're saying is not even true in terms of how the socialist leaders have lived.
If you study Thomas Sankara, he became the leader of Burkina Faso and is seen by many as an African hero.
One of the first things he did when he took power was actually to take away luxuries from the country's ruling class (including himself). He lived humbly, was a man of the peace and was not into materialism. The fact is if every socialist leader fit the model that you want to superimpose on them all, then why did Sankara have to be killed? Why did Salvador Allende have to be killed? Emiliano Zapata?
Those men were sincere idealists, I believe. The issue with the rulers is not that they are misguided idealists. They are not idealists at all. They are ruled by pure cynicism. So we can't say that society can't be ruled by idealists because we're not seeing a society ruled by idealists. We still have to figure out what that society, in it most fully developed forms, would look like.
Where did those rich people's money come from in the first place? I don't understand how it's greed to think it's crazy that people have billions and billions while other people have nowhere to sleep.
You can use a lil Latin phrase if you like but according to one of the most basic principles of Aristotelian logic, capitalist propaganda=capitalist propaganda. You can't argue with the law of non-contradiction. x=x. Therefore, capitalist propaganda=capitlist propaganda
BTW, regarding Violette's comment, it's important to note that war is funded by money seized from the taxpayers against their will, which is not a scenario that could be even remotely considered free-market. Likewise, a strong argument could be made that much sickness is due to government policies including subsidized agriculture and the issuing of dietary guidelines. Subsidies are the seizing of taxpayer money and redistributing it to certain favored industries, in the name of the public good. None of that has anything to do with free market capitalism.
And you think Jesus is going to come and implement the same secular, Western liberal representative democracy that we know today? Is this current social order based on fundamental, eternal principles or is it merely what we know and what we're accustomed and adapted to? If we could go to another planet and meet an alien society, I'm sure they would have a totally different social system and think theirs is the perfect system. You really think Jesus' utopia would be the same format as our current system?
I feel like it would be going to a planet with aliens and just assuming the aliens will speak the same language as me. I can only assume that aliens would have their own languages. Or maybe a whole other system of communication. A whole other system- that's my point.
There is no way Jesus would show up, put a stamp of approval on the current system and let everything just continue as it is. If he shows up and establishes a kingdom (ie a government and social system), I think we should assume it would be very different than the system that we are used to. And I think it would be superior.
I can't think of a single economic/ political system that - without checks and balances - doesn't result in the elite and the underclass.
Capitalism has business elite and corporations ruling the world. Communism has the political elite ruling the world.Capitalism looks better because people appear to have freedom to choose their leader/s. Democracy overall is friendlier for business models.
I think corporations rule the world now though. Politicians work for businesses so they will get employed by business (if voted out of power). e.g. Clinton versus Trump - that shows how sick the democratic model is if only obscenely wealthy people can run for President.
Separate names with a comma.