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 wrote an interpretation if you want a detailed answer. I'll place the link below. Ignore the title it talks about all three. Socialism, communism and capitalism.
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.
Because the idea of capital creates greed and competition and the idea of communism creates a joint effort to survive as a whole. But just like my interpretation states, we need a faithful leader to lead the charge.
The problems with communism 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 communism to work. Jesus already proved he was.
No sinful man can lead a communist government. The evil trickles down and everyone ends up getting discouraged.
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.
Type in communism and fat cats. The term "Fat Cats" we're used to describe guys like Fidel Castro who lived off the backs of people who worked yet couldn't afford to eat meat while he and his friends lived like kings in palaces.
If you read my entire interpretation (doubtful) you'd know I believe communism is the more perfect system yet can't be implemented because of sinful/evil leaders.
That last part where you exchanged the word communism with "capitalism." Is just a knee jerk reaction from you which lacks truth.
With capitalism you have company owners who worked for their wealth and who have the power to exploit their workers and bride lawmakers and there are thousands of them. Impossible to require each and every one of them to abandon their greed.
With communism it's different. If you have one guy at the top who is a servant to all then his morals and ethics trickle down and inspire the workforce. Pretty basic stuff actually.
Even if our President in a capitalistic system is a servant it doesn't matter because unlike communism, the capitalistic system inspires greed and competition. The capitalistic model is based on individual exploitation. The communist system is based on a collective work.
I agree that in small tribes communism works but until we can prove it can succeed within a country or continent that argument falls flat.
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.
Quit changing the focus. The term doesn't matter, it's my explanation which you are clearly ignoring in order to focus on one word to make it appear you're controlling this argument.
You're ignoring my general points so there is no reason to speak with you further.
It's like my reasoning in the interpretation (not to mention this thread) is a tree and you are grabbing one leaf and saying, "I disqualify the tree."
Let me know when you're ready to deal with the root of what I have said. The twig and leaf you grabbed don't change the core (root,trunk) of what I've said.
You're just looking to score points. The interpretation I posted is already post game.
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.
Separate names with a comma.