The same guy who gave us both Trump & Hillary?
Time for regime change.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poll: capitalism or democracy?
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
Time for regime change.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, then I don't think he's doing a very good job with that.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Only in a very few countries and only within the past few decades. If you include the entire scope of history and all capitalist countries (which could include any class-based society before industrialism as well), then it's hardly the virtuous ideals of which you speak. That's not to say that capitalism can't hold such virtuous ideals, but socialism can, too.
What is more virtuous than global equality for all human beings? Capitalism doesn't offer that, and in fact, equality runs counter to capitalistic ideals.
Do you think that laws regarding civil rights and non-discrimination are capitalistic in origin? From a capitalistic viewpoint, such laws constitute government interference in the private sector and antithetical to the principles of the free market.
Keep in mind that capitalists had to be forced to end slavery. They had to be forced to pay better wages and improve working conditions. They had to be forced to stop sweatshops and child labor (and they're still continuing such practices overseas for the benefit of Western consumers). They had to be forced to stop discriminatory and racist practices. Whatever "virtuous ideals" you ascribe to capitalism, the fact is, they did not embrace these ideals voluntarily or even all that sincerely.
Any society would embrace authoritarianism if they believed they were facing a mortal threat to their existence. One could say that President Lincoln was an authoritarian by some of his actions, yet it could be reasonably argued that he did so out of practical necessity and that the survival of the country was at stake.
Historically, attempts at building socialist societies have been met with attacks - both within and without - as well as sabotage, espionage, intrigue, and other geopolitical mischief which capitalists and imperialists have become famous for.
I don't believe that socialists embraced authoritarianism just because they wanted to, but because the capitalist powers were dead set on wanting them to fail and doing whatever they could to make that happen. In the case of the Soviet Union, the capitalists did succeed in the objective of destroying that country, but only after 74 years, a world war, a cold war, and numerous hot wars around the world which took their toll on Western society and also affected domestic politics where we also became somewhat authoritarian, mostly rooted in widespread and mostly irrational fears of socialism. (Many of the Trumpists we see these days are products of that era and the mindset it produced.)
So, in other words, while we may have "won" the Cold War, it was a pyrrhic victory from which we still have not recovered.
The point is, "systems" are merely abstractions. Capitalism, in and of itself, does not grow a single blade of grass nor does it actually produce anything. Resources, industrial skill, science, technology, hard work, and also (unfortunately) aggressive militarism and territorial expansionism - that's how America got big. That's what made our country a success.
The industrialism and the science behind it was borrowed mostly from Europe, particularly our Mother Country, but the vast expanse of resources and arable lands teeming across a sparsely populated continent was ripe for the taking. The climate was favorable and we were somewhat far removed and buffered from the aggressive intrigues of European politics. Therefore, we were able to expand and grow in relative peace, without much danger or interference from outside the country. By the time of the world wars, we were an industrial powerhouse and a force to be reckoned with.
Some of it was just a matter of circumstances and various key events which shape history. In practice, it was kind of ugly and despicable, as many of us know. The "system" did not create cotton. Cotton grows from the ground, and it needs a favorable climate. All they needed was someone to pick it. They also need the land, of course, which required the removal of those who were already living there. Capitalists ostensibly welcomed government intervention in that regard. It was similar in the mineral-rich Western states, where mining companies and ranchers made out quite well for themselves, extracting the resources to feed our growing industries, which required railroads to move it all back and forth. However, this had the effect of uprooting and disrupting the ways of living of the Native populations who had been living there for thousands of years.
Modern capitalists in today's era seem to want to whitewash that history - or at least, tell it in such a way that their revered "system" is not mentioned and essentially absolved of any responsibility or blame for America's past transgressions.
So, I guess what I'm saying here is that, if you want to credit the "system" for America's success, then all I would ask is that you give a long, hard thorough examination of what that "system" actually is - and was.
I think the US and UK took account of the situation and realized the mistakes they both made in the years leading up to the war - which started at the end of the last war. Appeasement, for example, was viewed as one of the most monumental blunders in history. Also, the US Senate's refusal to allow the US to join the League of Nations weakened that body to the point that it could not prevent conflict or restrain aggressive states.
If nothing else, WW2 brought about a great turnaround in US public opinion to where we no longer supported isolationist, non-interventionist policies, but we went full tilt in the other direction, as global interventionism was tied in with the policy of Containment. This is when Captain America was born, the righter of all wrongs and the chief law enforcement officer of the world.
And that's precisely the reason why "systems" may not be the be all and end all. Systems have to adapt to changing circumstances, and if they're not flexible or adaptable, then they could very easily fail. I think that was a major underlying problem within the Soviet system. It may not necessarily be the "system," although there is a certain personality trait in some humans exuding a certain ideological intransigence and fervent belief in a "system" that it becomes not unlike a religious belief.
Well, as I said, I was born here, this is where I live, and this is where I will stay. It has nothing to do with any "system," but more a matter of culture, geography, and family ties. I do love America, and because of this, I favor an egalitarian society which wouldn't be entirely socialist, though I think there should be a certain basic livable income or at least commitment to sustain the basic material needs of the populace. On this point, I think socialists and liberals can probably find much room for agreement, although the biggest opponents of proposals like that are the capitalists, conservatives, and others on the right-wing of the spectrum.
As far as your second question - who is doing it better than the West, economically speaking - that's actually a complicated question. China has definitely become a force to be reckoned with, although one might argue that it was because China embraced some policies which were friendly to Western capitalists. The Western capitalists are/were always on the lookout for new markets and cheap sources of labor, and China provided both. This has benefited China enormously, and many Western capitalists have done quite well in the process, too.
Looking over the long term, I can envision a time in the not-so-distant future where the West will no longer be the center of the universe that we think we are today.
Yes, as long as there are some common bases which give reasons for people to cooperate with each other, such as mutual self-interest. But whatever spirit of cooperation and community might have once existed seems to have diminished. In recent times, we've seen scenes such as parents at school board meetings becoming violent and starting fights because of face masks in schools.
He works in mysterious ways.
We mere mortals cannot understand how this is the best of all possible worlds.
I think presuming to judge an omnipotent Being is not a smart move.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I go by the results. I think you'd be hard put to find any serious theologian who would claim that God is in charge of what we see happening in the world.
BTW, do you think God chose Biden to be our president? Trump? Gee, according to you, why even have elections?
syo
Well-Known Member
I've also judged Voldemort, Allah, & Zeus harshly.
No consequences yet.
So because you maligned some false deities you think that will protect you.
Meh....one sky fairy is no more cromulent than the next.So because you maligned some false deities you think that will protect you.
If one of the many actually does turn out to be the singular
Grand Poobah Of Life, The Universe, & Everything, then
what are the odds against selecting it from the many, eh.
And then one must divine just what it is this being wants
from us in exchange for a possible reward (or punishment)
in a possible afterlife.
There's just no objective info to act upon. So no worries
about supernatural things unknown & uncontrollable.
I live my life as I see fit.
Last edited:
I think political scientists and historians would probably classify those pre-industrial societies as feudal, not capitalist. So no, I don't think it's fair to saddle capitalism with all the values of medieval or even ancient societies.
It's true that our freedoms have developed over time, and it's also true that socialists have adopted some of the values I mentioned. But capitalist societies have been those that have paved the way for them most notably.
This depends what you mean by equality. Capitalists value equality of opportunity. Socialists, on the other hand, are more interested in equality of outcome. And no, I don't think that's always virtuous. If someone works harder than I do, makes wiser decisions, benefits others more than I do, should she and I have the same salary by government fiat? No, I don't find that virtuous at all.
Capitalism has a spectrum of acceptable policy positions within it that all capitalists don't agree on. Capitalists have long recognized that there need to be boundaries placed on what is acceptable within markets to ensure fairness and conpetitiveness. Only the furthest right libertarian anarchist sorts don't think so.
It was by and large other capitalists who forced those changes.
I'm sorry, but this comes off as an excuse to me. A post-mortem could be conducted on pretty much any society to determine which environmental factors contributed to whatever awful decisions or policies they implemented. But at the end of the day, responsibility still needs to be taken.
So it's capitalism's fault that socialist states have been so dictatorial? Cmon Steve. State ownership of industry is a feature of socialism, not a bug.
Then I suppose you'd say the same about socialism, then?
We were an industrial powerhouse precisely because of the economic freedoms available to people which incentivized innovation and industrial expansion. You cannot seriously think that had nothing to do with it, surely.
America's past is a very mixed bag, there is no doubt. And I don't defend our country's awful treatment of Native people, not to mention slaves of course. But I don't see a need to throw the baby out with the bathwater or ignore the good things we've done because of the bad things.
That's a fair ask.
It seems to me that not a few socialists do exhibit this dogmatic, black and white way of seeing the world. And I agree it's problematic, no matter what your political ideology may be.
On that we do certainly agree.
I would say so, yes.
It has benefitted China, yes I think you're right. Although those benefits have not extended as thoroughly to their everyday citizen. The median household income is, what, $3,000/year?
That's true, we have lost a sense of community that I think we need to get back. People have become so intransigent in their politics and have pushed one another so far to extremes of right and left that there seems very little room for compromise or moderation. Or even for seeing those we disagree with as people to be respected.
I would classify them both as class-based, for-profit enterprises. If their leaders hoarded wealth and loved gold, then I would say they're on the same moral and social level as capitalists, even if not technologically.
At least at first, the early industrialists ran their factories not unlike agrarian feudalism, where the workers lived on the same premises and worked 'til they dropped. Children, too. I've read accounts which speak of screaming and crying which can be heard late at night from inside the factories, due to the beatings and mistreatment. It wasn't until after the Revolutions of 1848 that political leaders realized that capitalism can't really operate as a form of industrial serfdom. But they had to learn that the hard way, largely tempered by other political movements of the era.
Just as you say it's not fair to saddle capitalism with the values of ancient societies (even though the early capitalists embraced those values too), I would say it's unfair to credit capitalism with the enlightened values of liberalism and socialism which came about largely in reaction to the abuses of the early capitalists.
I would say that those values and freedoms developed over time in spite of capitalism, not because of it. A lot of it was mainly because of the demographic changes which were occurring as a result of industrialization, especially as machines made human labor less needed on the farms.
Peasants from the farms started relocating to where they could find work in factories - in cities that began to grow exponentially. Advancements in transportation made traveling much faster, as well as advancements in communications which accelerated the speed of that process. This created a different dynamic and an unprecedented situation merely because of how large the cities had become and how many people were concentrated in a single area. A small peasant uprising could spread like wildfire into becoming a full-blown revolt or insurrection.
So, they had to come up with new ways and methods to pacify and keep larger numbers of "cattle" under positive control. As the saying goes, you get more flies with honey than vinegar, so those governments which used honey (liberalism) flourished, while those that used vinegar (authoritarianism) fell into disarray and revolution. It wasn't due to capitalism, though, not by itself.
That's assuming that they actually do work harder, make wiser decisions, and benefit others more than you do. That's a very, very big assumption that would require more evidence to prove than anyone has ever been able to provide. (I've had this discussion before, as you might have guessed.)
You're advancing one of the more commonly-used arguments to justify capitalism - that it's simple competition based in the just world fallacy that those who work harder, who are smarter, more intelligent, more clever are justly rewarded. Likewise, (the argument goes) those who are at the lower end of the economic ladder are in that position because they didn't work hard enough, they're not smart enough, not clever enough, not strong enough, etc.
It seems like a variation on the idea of "survival of the fittest," which makes capitalism a form of social Darwinism, which puts it on the same moral level as nationalism and racism.
If you've noticed, capitalism itself has moved further right, at least since the Reagan era, which was a wholesale rejection of Keynesianism. Active government intervention in the private sector is required in order to ensure fairness and competitiveness, and this is what capitalists have balked against and resisted. Many of them fought tooth and nail against the labor movement, FDR's New Deal, and even necessary measures required to marshal our industries and resources to produce the hardware for WW2.
FDR's policies balanced the needs of the private sector and the public sector. It balanced the humanistic ideals of liberalism and progressivism with the practical realities of real-world politics. However, many capitalists of today deride FDR as a "socialist," which he wasn't - but that doesn't really stop the rhetoric.
Not just them. The Abolitionist movement was more religiously based than anything else, although opposition also came from the lower working classes for various reasons. The industrial capitalists who supported the Union did not do so for any real humanitarian reasons, and they were not at all ideologically or socially congruent with the more high-minded Abolitionists. Economically, both the North and South were capitalistic, although the North favored industrialism intended to be relatively self-sufficient, while the South favored an plantation, slave-based economy which would export a few commodities and cash crops in exchange for manufactured goods from Europe. The fact was, slavery was rapidly becoming an anachronism in the brave new world of industrialism, science, and technology.
I would say that the growth of science and enlightened liberalism went hand in hand, as liberalism is necessary for scientific truth to flourish. Industrial technology and development also came out of this. It wasn't really caused by capitalism, but more the opposite. Capitalism owes a great deal more to liberalism than most of today's capitalists would care to admit.
Yes, in theory that sounds good in that responsibility still needs to be taken, but by whom and on whose behalf? I'm just rendering a historical opinion on how events can be caused and turn out as they have. I'm not offering any excuses, because I have personally done nothing that needs to be excused.
I've seen a wide variety of historical arguments which try to explain how things happen and what caused them - a plethora of factors involved. That's why most "system-based" arguments tend to fall flat in my eyes. To say things like "they live horrible lives because they have a bad system" or "we live wonderful lives because we have a great system" just seems incredibly oversimplified and smacks of typical American jingoism.
Well, I didn't say it like that. But in any nation under siege like that, there is a tendency for people to support the faction or leader which they regard as the strongest or the toughest, as they're seen as better able to protect the country and people. I'm not saying it's the correct course of action to take; in fact, most of the time, it makes things worse. However, that is a historical tendency which seems to be a recurring theme throughout history.
I wasn't referring to state ownership of industry. That, in and of itself, does not make a state dictatorial or authoritarian.
In a way, yes, although socialism largely came about as a reaction to capitalism and sought improvements in the ways and means of industrialized society. The current political divide seems to be liberal capitalists vs. conservative/reactionary capitalists. By default, socialists would tend to be on the side of the liberal capitalists, although that's where some of the internal divisions on the left tend to play out. It's kind of complicated, since there are competing factions and cross purposes at both ends of the spectrum. That's as much cultural as it is systemic - although terms like "culture," "society," and "system" are often used interchangeably.
I didn't say it "had nothing to do with it," but I don't think it's really as simple as many capitalist ideologues would have us believe.
For one thing, consider how we acquired so much territory on this continent and how it developed as quickly as it did. Yes, there were some economic freedoms bestowed upon those who had the right skin color and who happened to be in the right place at the right time. The reason Andrew Jackson became so popular and revered as one of the greatest Presidents was because the common (white) people benefited from his policies. Think of it: He opened up vast new lands for white people to settle in by forcibly removing the Native Americans and sending them westward. Then white people could move in and claim the land for free, just as long as they got there first (before any other white person tried to jump their claim). And the real beauty of it all is that they could then have the land cleared and plantations built by slaves bought on credit. For an otherwise landless peasant, that would have sounded like an excellent deal, and for those who were already wealthy and established, it sent the riff-raff further west and out of the hair of America's burgeoning aristocracy.
Today we see it as a shameful atrocity and a crime against humanity, but back then, they saw it as "Manifest Destiny." But make no mistake: It was not due to a system of "economic freedoms" in the same way we might look at it today.
Not all of the early settlers bought slaves, though. But many did clear and work the land, built farms, which led to towns, railroads, and other developments - economic, social, cultural, and political, and many of the processes were still just as odious, even in areas which didn't have slavery.
Yes, there were some innovations (although I've come to realize that Americans tend to exaggerate and take credit for inventions and discoveries made in other lands). There was also a great deal of industrial expansion - there's no doubt about this.
Here in Arizona, schoolkids are taught about the three C's of Arizona history: Copper, cattle, and cotton. (Some also include citrus as a fourth "C.") These are things - commodities, which have nothing to do with any "system." Of course, there were people already living here, such as the Apache, and leaders like Geronimo and Cochise didn't like what was happening to their land and people. Their system was much different, and it had nothing to do with copper, cattle, or cotton. Then there was the matter of how we managed to acquire this land in the first place, which was through governmental action that the capitalists clearly benefited from.
Of course, it should be noted that the actual process of digging into the ground and extracting copper, silver, gold, or other ores was not actually done by the capitalists, but by ordinary working stiffs who suffered and worked long hours for very little pay. Same for the cowhands and those who picked cotton (or other crops). I guess one could say there was "economic freedom" in theory, although it was probably something closer to anarchism in practice, while still operating under the umbrella of federal control - though federal power was still somewhat spotty and scattered at that point.
Back east, it was political machines and trusts, as those on top had everything sewn up. After the Civil War, they were particularly pleased with themselves, as they could say they ended slavery - although were still far too indulgent with the racist culture and politics of the former slave states, which also spilled over into the North - and West, for that matter. The early seeds of American xenophobia would be planted during this era, along with the jingoism and all those patriotic songs and stories which have become part and parcel of Americana.
Capitalism was flourishing and certainly along for the ride, although that may reveal the greatest flaw of capitalism, even if some view it as their strength. That is, capitalists can always be expected to go wherever the profit is, yet sometimes they're not always cognizant or mindful of where it actually leads them and their society. Without the temperance and restraint of other ideals to tame capitalism and keep it under positive control, capitalism can become an ugly beast.
So, yes, give a beast enough freedom, and it might flourish and become powerful, but if it's out of control, it can lead to disaster. You say it's because of economic freedoms that we became an industrial powerhouse, though that's only half true. I say it's because we restrained many of those economic freedoms that America became far more livable, just, and progressive (and even then, we seem to be lagging behind other industrialized nations).
But the whole thing is about America's vast lands and the cornucopia of resources which emanated from it, in a favorable climate, with weak and depleted internal resistance, and no real outside interference to speak of. I don't think it was really planned that way. I don't think they had any real system in mind - or at least, in the early beginnings of colonization, many of the ideals and principles we subscribe to today were in a state of flux or early formation.
Yes, a lot of good things did come out of it, and perhaps if we were more in a mood towards sharing our good fortune and wealth across a wider group of people, a lot of problems which developed in this country could have been avoided. I don't think that anyone is really that much against or would actively turn down a better, more comfortable existence which have come about through industry, technology, science - and all the modern conveniences and luxuries many of us in the capitalist world have come to enjoy and even depend upon.
Socialists certainly have nothing against industry, technology, or science - and many of them proclaim they want to have a better society, too - except one that is more equitable and fair, recognizing the true value of the workers whose role in the process is indispensable. It doesn't necessarily mean totally equal outcomes, although there may be some differences of opinion on that point. The inventors and creators certainly deserve rightful credit and just compensation for their efforts and contributions.
I agree that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we also need to be more careful in clarifying which is the "baby" and which is the "bathwater." We can't undo or erase our own history, but we can build upon what we already have now and make a more equitable, prosperous, and productive society.
The key thing is to give everyone a fair and reasonable stake in the well-being of that society, and that's what is truly missing in today's politics. I believe that socialism can accomplish this, and it would be the most effective counter to the disturbing trends towards nationalism that we've been seeing on the rise lately. Liberalized capitalism, however progressive it might appear on its face, is a dead end. It's ultimately a waste of political capital and resources on a fight it cannot win on its own terms. Socialists fight on different terms. They do things differently than liberals do, even if they might both agree on many issues.
I noticed a certain tendency towards dogmatic, black-and-white thinking when I studied Soviet history. Stalin was cruel, paranoid, and atrocious, to be sure, but he was also one of the more enigmatic figures of the 20th century. From a Western perspective, our treatment of Stalin has been a bit more careful, since he was our ally for a few brief years, whereas more focus was put on our shared enemy, the Nazis and their attention-grabbing, charismatic leader. It's almost rather macabre and bizarre how we look back on that era, both the Nazi era and the Stalinist era. But we also need to temper that with a look at ourselves and our own past. Not that I'm saying that we anywhere near as bad or trying to advance any "whataboutist" argument.
My only point is that, ultimately, the discussion at hand (when we speak socialism, capitalism, and democracy) is that we're talking about what would work best in our own country under the circumstances we're currently facing. Even if one could argue that that industrial capitalism was a necessary evil in the process of building the industries and infrastructures needed to enhance and improve the quality of life, that isn't necessarily the end game, nor should it be considered such. If we see it that way, then society will stagnate and ultimately collapse. That may be what we're seeing the early stages of now, but I think it's unwise to go on with business as usual and just rest on our laurels in the belief that all we need is more capitalism and more freedom and everything will be okay.
They still have a lot of problems, yes, and the current tone of their government seems more nationalistic than anything else. Any kind of material or moral support for a world-wide communist movement has largely fizzled out. International Communism is hardly any kind of threat anymore.
It almost feels like America is on the verge of a nervous breakdown, metaphorically speaking. It doesn't mean that we're past the point of no return, but we have to recognize the problem and be willing to deal with it.
Whatever direction we choose, there will be both costs and benefits, along with many risks. No system is perfect, and taking into consideration things like climate change and the depletion of resources (especially even things like fresh water), the world is facing some monumental challenges in the coming decades and centuries (if we even live that long). Capitalists - and the politicians who love them - don't think in those terms. As I said above, capitalists only go where the money is, regardless of where it might take them.
Now, it's brought us to this precipice, and even the capitalists don't know what to do. The liberals don't know what to do either. All they really know is that they don't want to do what the conservatives want to do. But they're at a dead end and the whole country is in a political quagmire.
With such creative classification, you could
add socialism to your list, given its awful record
of hoarding wealth & power for the elites.
Of course, such rationalizing is the only way to
make feudalism & capitalism morally equivalent.
But I wonder....there are no examples of socialist
countries (ie, those who eschewed capitalism)
faring well in liberty & prosperity. But are there
examples of feudalism being better?
I'm off to the internet....it knows!
Back...
It's complicated.
Examples of feudalism - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Some high officials had slightly better salaries, privileges, and living accommodations, but nowhere near the disparities one can see in other countries. They didn't have ornate palaces or secret caches of gold stashed away.
From 1975....
How the Soviet Elite Lives: At Play in the Shadow of the Kremlin
One could argue that socialism is better than capitalism because
the wealth disparity is less. But this looks only so because there
exists so very much less wealth under socialism's deadening boot.
I think the mistake you are making is equating winning an election with actually being in charge.I go by the results. I think you'd be hard put to find any serious theologian who would claim that God is in charge of what we see happening in the world.
BTW, do you think God chose Biden to be our president? Trump? Gee, according to you, why even have elections?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
No, it's not mistake because "being on charge" implies it's all under control. If you had posted "Could be in charge.", that's a different matter.
That's not really due to the system though. It's the people who make up the system that make or break it. Admittedly, the Soviet system grew somewhat fossilized and corrupt in its later years, and this likely contributed to their collapse. They weren't practicing socialism. They weren't practicing what they were preaching.
But what can be done about that? There are/were Christians who don't practice what they preach. Actually, that can be said about all religions. There are politicians and officials in the US government who don't practice what they preach either.
Theoretically, any system can work just fine, but the problem is that people find a way of messing it all up.