Pope Francis calls unfettered capitalism 'tyranny' in manifesto for papacy

[Revoltingest]

... or when economic quirks (natural monopolies, for instance) allow one person to use market forces to force a particular wealth distribution on others.

Yes, monopolies are bad medicine....as I've oft said.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is rather, as you correctly point out, that such a basic part of people's life might be forced upon them.
That is not really a necessary part of State Socialism, although we have largely grown too distant from our own supposed political representatives to easily realize that.

State socialism (aka "socialism") requires the threat of force.
Without it, malcontents would opt out, & begin to freely associate economically with other like minded folk.
Were this to become widespread, socialism would suffer. So this systemic challenge must be neutralized.
Some argue that it's voluntary if it's voted in, but when 2 wolves & a goat vote on what's for dinner, it's only
voluntary for the majority.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

State socialism (aka "socialism") requires the threat of force.
Without it, malcontents would opt out, & begin to freely associate economically with other like minded folk.

Unless their self interest was best served by the socialist system.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unless their self interest was best served by the socialist system.

You speak of the people who embrace socialism.
They aren't the problem for a socialist government.
Tis those who would opt out who must be suppressed.
And the threat of force is behind every government prohibition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You speak of the people who embrace socialism.
They aren't the problem for a socialist government.
Tis those who would opt out who must be suppressed.
And the threat of force is behind every government prohibition.

What I'm saying is I'm not sure why you're so sure that these people would even exist in any given socialist system. It's probably at least possible that a good enough socialist system would work well enough that anyone who might've preferred a free market system if they had their druthers might still find that, given the options available, their self-interest is better served by staying with the socialists than venturing out on their own.

 

[Me Myself]

I am not following.

Isnt something like health for everyone regardless of if they can pay it and likewise with food a socialist idea? Cause that sounds like a good thing.

There is no problem to me that some may have more than others, as ling as evryone has enoughh to eat and take care of their health. If they dont, then tax the #%* out of those people who literally eat gold once in a while.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I'm saying is I'm not sure why you're so sure that these people would even exist in any given socialist system. It's probably at least possible that a good enough socialist system would work well enough that anyone who might've preferred a free market system if they had their druthers might still find that, given the options available, their self-interest is better served by staying with the socialists than venturing out on their own.

This is like saying that fascism doesn't require the threat of force because everyone might like it.
In the real world, there are always those who prefer something other than what is imposed.
This is evidenced by the black market economies which exist/existed in USSR, PRC, Cuba.
Would you say that all N Koreans are happy with socialism? Suppose that some would like to
set up businesses. What do you think the government would do with them?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is like saying that fascism doesn't require the threat of force because everyone might like it.
In the real world, there are always those who prefer something other than what is imposed.
This is evidenced by the black market economies which exist/existed in USSR, PRC, Cuba.
Would you say that all N Koreans are happy with socialism?

No more than all Somalis are happy with laissez-faire capitalism. Neither example is reflective of the whole spectrum of either socialism or capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

No more than all Somalis are happy with laissez-faire capitalism. Neither example is reflective of the whole spectrum of either socialism or capitalism.

To cite a lawless & fractured country a red herring.
Under capitalism, there is no need to force people to be capitalistic, nor is there a need to prevent voluntary socialism.
But under socialism, private business (ie, capitalism) must be prevented using threat of force.

Btw, you didnt answer my questions about N Korea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To cite a lawless country a red herring.

It's not lawless; it's being guided by the invisible hand of the market.

Under capitalism, there is no need to force people to be capitalistic, nor is there a need to force them to not engage in socialism.
But under socialism, private business (ie, capitalism) must be prevented using threat of force.

I think we're operating with different definitions of "socialism". The definition I was taught doesn't preclude private business.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not lawless; it's being guided by the invisible hand of the market.

Tis not a free market if criminal activity rules.
I'll try again:
Under capitalism, the threat of force is not needed to enforce a prohibition against socialism.
Under socialism, the threat of force is needed to enforce a prohibition against capitalism.
This is not to say that every capitalistic society (if that's what you claim Somalia is) will be free of coercion...only that it isn't inherent in the system.
So your example of Somalia is a red herring.

I think we're operating with different definitions of "socialism". The definition I was taught doesn't preclude private business.

I use this one....
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com
If there are private businesses then this is not "....vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. "
I'm not addressing hybrid systems such as Canuckistan or Americastan.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Tis not a free market if criminal activity rules.

With no governmental laws, what's "criminal"?

I'll try again:
Under capitalism, the threat of force is not needed to enforce a prohibition against socialism.
Under socialism, the threat of force is needed to enforce a prohibition against capitalism.

AFAICT, the threat of force may be needed to actually conduct transactions in either system. Someone who exercises rational self-interest would probably realize that when they're trading object A for object B from someone else, they'd be better off if they just take object B and keep object A. To stop this from happening, there needs to be the threat of some sort of consequence if he did this.

This is not to say that every capitalistic society (if that's what you claim Somalia is) will be free of coercion...only that it isn't inherent in the system.
So your example of Somalia is a red herring.

Not really. As I pointed out when I brought it up, while Somalia is one example of free market capitalism (and probably the "freest" market in the world today, at least in terms of government regulation), it does not reflect the entire spectrum of capitalism.

I use this one....
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com
If there are private businesses then this is not "....vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. "
I'm not addressing hybrid systems such as Canuckistan or Americastan.

That is what I'm addressing, pretty much: systems with a mix of public and private industries, where it's acknowleged that the government has the responsibility to see to the welfare of the people, and where the government has a significant role in the economic decisions of the country and doesn't leave everything up to market forces alone.

 

[Revoltingest]

With no governmental laws, what's "criminal"?

If I have to explain that, then it would take too long.
I've covered everything I intended, & have nothing new to add.

 

[metis]

Could you cite a few verses where Jesus embrace any governmental form, let alone Socialism and/or Communism?

Jesus would have been familiar, I would suppose, with the Torah mandate that requires both governmental and charitable giving to help the poor and the widows, and I don't see anything in the "N.T." that implies that he opposed that function being taken over by the Great Sanhedrin and the Temple authorities. Why would he as they did create the safety net that helped people. Even though it's not directly mentioned in the Parable of the Widow's Mite, there's an implication of such because he states that the widow went beyond what was required (by the Law of tithing).

 

[nazz]

Jesus would have been familiar, I would suppose, with the Torah mandate that requires both governmental and charitable giving to help the poor and the widows, and I don't see anything in the "N.T." that implies that he opposed that function being taken over by the Great Sanhedrin and the Temple authorities. Why would he as they did create the safety net that helped people. Even though it's not directly mentioned in the Parable of the Widow's Mite, there's an implication of such because he states that the widow went beyond what was required (by the Law of tithing).

The early church was essentially communistic. I think they got that idea from Jesus.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Could you cite a few verses where Jesus embrace any governmental form, let alone Socialism and/or Communism?

Good grief you did not even read what I said.

Jesus embraced Socialist/Communist ideas such as the spreading of wealth and the relinquishment of greed.

"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."

This is Communism buddy. I never said he assigned himself to a political or economic party

 

[Sha'irullah]

How do you figure?

I'd agree that Jesus of the Bible hints at socialism for Christians, but I think he also expresses the assumption that Christianity will never be in power. He seems to believe that Christianity will never achieve wide acceptance ("narrow is the way..." etc.) and will always be on the fringes of society.

I say worldwide because of the desire of Jesus and Paul to spread Christianity amongst the "4 corners of the earth". My Biblical knowledge has dwindled over the years so I am not claiming intellectual superiority(opposite actually).

But I am fairly certain that Jesus in accordance of the Bible desired of his message to be spread amongst humanity. He actions and his deeds to be known and followed. This is why I said Jesus would have wanted Communism/Socialism on a world wide level.

The degree of it I am not certain of but without a doubt some form of Communism would be prevalent. The nature of it is arguable though and goes outside of my knowledge.

 

[metis]

The early church was essentially communistic. I think they got that idea from Jesus.

Shhhhhh, better not say that too loudly or the right-wing will conduct another Inquisition. BTW, how tall do you think you could become on the rack?

 

[Sha'irullah]

The early church was essentially communistic. I think they got that idea from Jesus.

The early church was far from communist, it was about stealing power and keeping it amongst nobles.

You are equating authoritarian, dictatorial, plutocratic and theocratic with communism. All 4 and especially the 3rd are anti-Communist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I say worldwide because of the desire of Jesus and Paul to spread Christianity amongst the "4 corners of the earth". My Biblical knowledge has dwindled over the years so I am not claiming intellectual superiority(opposite actually).

But I am fairly certain that Jesus in accordance of the Bible desired of his message to be spread amongst humanity. He actions and his deeds to be known and followed. This is why I said Jesus would have wanted Communism/Socialism on a world wide level.

The degree of it I am not certain of but without a doubt some form of Communism would be prevalent. The nature of it is arguable though and goes outside of my knowledge.

Based on my reading, the Jesus of the Gospels wanted to spread his message to the whole world but expected that most people, particularly those with comfort or power, would not accept it