## The problem of evil

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

### Re: The problem of evil

Zero_Sum wrote:Christian capitalists discussing morally or ethics makes me lolz. Can there be any bigger hypocrites in this world?
In what sense are they hypocrites?

In a Christian society, food needs to be grow, goods need to be manufactured, products need to be distributed. It's not possible for everyone to give away all his possessions and wander the desert.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10726
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: The problem of evil

phyllo wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:Christian capitalists discussing morally or ethics makes me lolz. Can there be any bigger hypocrites in this world?
In what sense are they hypocrites?

In a Christian society, food needs to be grow, goods need to be manufactured, products need to be distributed. It's not possible for everyone to give away all his possessions and wander the desert.
Is the only way to perform those actions via current neo-liberal capitalism?
Are their ways that do not allow, for example, corporate personhood, permanent corporate charter (that is we used to withdraw corporate charters from companies that did messed up stuff, but no more), corporate control of elected officials (that is current lobbying and election finance practices), fiat banking and banker creation of money, the variety of not based on labor types of earning (the capital part of capitalism, especially in its modern form), corporate control of media and the like?

IOW I think in a lot of these kinds of discussions there is a false dilemma between state socialism a al the USSR and capitalism, as if the latter represents freedom of tyranny and the former is the only way to hinder the oligarchies we have today that call themselves democracies.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker

Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

Is the only way to perform those actions via current neo-liberal capitalism?
I didn't say that it was the only way, but it's a possible way. Christian capitalists would have discuss the morality and ethics of it, to determine which aspects of capitalism are in sync with Christianity and which are not.
Capitalism is a broad subject and there are many aspects to it. It includes the person who owns an auto repair shop (or hairstylist) and employs a couple of people. That sort of business does not seem to be contrary to Christian principles.
Are their ways that do not allow, for example, corporate personhood, permanent corporate charter (that is we used to withdraw corporate charters from companies that did messed up stuff, but no more), corporate control of elected officials (that is current lobbying and election finance practices), fiat banking and banker creation of money, the variety of not based on labor types of earning (the capital part of capitalism, especially in its modern form), corporate control of media and the like?
Jesus and the apostles did not provide any specific answers to those questions. There is not one true Christian position to go to. Can Christian capitalists be called hypocrites if they see some of those things as not being contrary to Christianity? I don't think so.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10726
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: The problem of evil

phyllo wrote:
Is the only way to perform those actions via current neo-liberal capitalism?
I didn't say that it was the only way, but it's a possible way. Christian capitalists would have discuss the morality and ethics of it, to determine which aspects of capitalism are in sync with Christianity and which are not.
Capitalism is a broad subject and there are many aspects to it. It includes the person who owns an auto repair shop (or hairstylist) and employs a couple of people. That sort of business does not seem to be contrary to Christian principles.
To me that's not capitalism. Capitalism is the way the economy is organized in general. The person owning the repair shop would have days very similar in many types of economic system. And that person is not a capitalist, he or she is a laborer. Or a small business owner with minor capital. He makes money off his labor. Which people do in all sorts of economies.
Jesus and the apostles did not provide any specific answers to those questions. There is not one true Christian position to go to. Can Christian capitalists be called hypocrites if they see some of those things as not being contrary to Christianity? I don't think so.
They can if those things lead to evil treatment of people, which they do. A Christian auto repair worker in the US has little choice but to participate in the wider economy. But to be pro-Capitalist is another matter. Most people do not realize that capitalism is many of the things it is and further a system that was democratic and even allowed for varieties of income need not be capitalist. Christian capitalists in the 80s say, were supporting evil in Latin America where corporations were doing whatever they wanted including overthrowing governments and getting people killed and stifling democracy. Wall Street and corporations connected to the Bush administration created the second Iraq war for a set of different money related reasons. No one has gone to prison for this and the reasons come down to facets of capitalism: control of government, government oversight and also media.

The auto repair shop guy does not have capital in the sense of capitalism. He makes money from his labor. The people making decisions make money through capital. The system is mainly for them. There are facets that work to varying degrees for other people, but most people are not capitalists, say in the US, even if they think capitalism is the best or least bad alternative.

The zero sum game aspects of capitalism are anti-christian. There almost no convictions for the 2008 financial crisis despite the enormous effects on the world and workers. This is because capitalism is for the capitalists, primarily. Try stealing in the ways non-capitalist class members steal and you will find out you are not considered a capitalist by the system. This does not fit with Christianity where we all have equal value. None of this means that communism, especially on a large scale, has fit with Christianity. But these are not the only choices.

Capitalism necessarily enhances the view that other people are resources (or not) and not people (or souls). It is also utterly materialistic in its view of human worth. There is no spiritual aspect to humans in capitalism, something capitalism shares with communism.

But most obviously Capitalism contradicts the Sermon on the Mount. Capitalists absolutely do not follow 'do unto others as you would have....' They don't even pass the less restrictive Mosaic version that Jesus was making even tougher. Their expectations for their own treatment does not match their expectations for the treatment of others, and capitalism is precisely designed to honor, again not coincidentally, the capital owning class. Banks can loan out money and then invest it and bankers make money off of those investments. Corporations are contracts with the government where owners are treated in ways regular people are not. Capitalism is fundamentally designed for the rich to do differently unto others, then they wish to have done to themselves. And this is all direct and legal and built in. Then given the power the money gives them they can and do extend this even more.

And let me be clear on this. It is not that some bad capitalists do bad things. The system is founded on the idea that we will do unto others, NOT as we would have them do unto us. Certainly some capitalists take this further, but it is inherent in capitalism to go against the SErmon on the Mount.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker

Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

To me that's not capitalism. Capitalism is the way the economy is organized in general. The person owning the repair shop would have days very similar in many types of economic system. And that person is not a capitalist, he or she is a laborer. Or a small business owner with minor capital. He makes money off his labor. Which people do in all sorts of economies.
That's just it. Your definition of capitalism is different from mine. If one looks at a basic definition, then those small business owners are capitalists - they own the means of production and use it to make a profit. For example:

Capitalism is an economic system based upon private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[4][5] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10726
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: The problem of evil

phyllo wrote:That's just it. Your definition of capitalism is different from mine. If one looks at a basic definition, then those small business owners are capitalists - they own the means of production and use it to make a profit. For example:
Right but here's what I notice. I am talking about the whole thing, and you are talking about one nice little piece from a Norman Rockwell painting. That's propaganda. There are people running auto shops in communist china, that doesn't make communism OK. People owned shops in Feudalism, that didn't make it OK or Christian. Further you do not need to have capitalism to have auto shops, even where people own their own business. I am not saying that the auto shop is not a part of capitalist society, it is. So are parks and libraries and hospitals and car accidents and lots of other things. I am saying that that little nice and carefully chosen example can be found in other economic systems and it not the problem for Christians. We could look at some facet of an unjust war and find some example of something neutral or good that was a facet of it, but this does not offset the larger picture. Yeah, I lost weight when I got cancer and I had been overweight, still I think the disease was not a good one. Etc.

Capitalism is an economic system based upon private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[4][5] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
That's a partial definition of capitalism focused only on some facets and ignoring the ones I mentioned, and it's not a very accurate one in the areas it mentions.

No response to the Sermon on the Mount. No response to any of the facets of Capitalism I mentioned in my post. Voluntary exchange - in what reality does capitalism ONLY have that? Pick one piece of my post. Focus on that. Ignore anything that might take some work to respond to. Cherry pick one zoomed in image from somewhere in the capitalist West, which in fact could be found also in parts of the communist or fascist type regulated economy East. That limited definition of capitalism also allows for the power of the capitalists to withhold labor from work and thus livlihood - since it is what they call a free market - and to let the market determine things like the price of an apartment. IOW since there is no morals here, but market regulating, people can charge rents and do that are beyond the means of some of the working class. That does not fit with the SErmon on the Mount. These are not bad apple problems, but inherent in capitalism.

Amd even within Wiki's distorted image of capitalism, you still have problems with the Sermon the Mount. In capitalism if you do not have what is considered the correct production ability you are on your own, outside, worth nothing and according to wikipedia, outside decision-making.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker

Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

Fellas...

Capitalism is the total lack of regulation because no capitalist would consider it beneficial to himself, an individual, to argue for regulations that benefit society.

Once even one regulation has been conceded, it is no longer capitalism, but socialism since every regulation is only for the good of society; therefore, everyone is arguing the degree of socialism and how many regulations we ought to have. 99.99% of people are socialists.

Capitalism = zero regulation
Socialism = greater than zero, but less than 100% regulation
fascism/communism = 100% regulated.
Serendipper
Thinker

Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

Karpel Tunnel wrote:No response to the Sermon on the Mount. No response to any of the facets of Capitalism I mentioned in my post.

Since both you guys have decided to ignore me, I'm curious which one of you will be first to ignore the other

My money is on Phyllo since he's next to bandy the ball and he's been around longer (annoyed longer/less patience).

Phyllo, who will you talk to after you inevitably ignore everyone here? I mean, the only reason to talk is in disagreement as I can't imagine what two people would discuss if they were in agreement with each other, but if you disagree, you invariably get pissed and not want to talk anymore. That seems a futile philosophy to hold.... unless you're depending on an eternal supply of new blood.

I'd like to see a debate where a resolution is reached. If that ever happens, I might print it out and frame it lol
Serendipper
Thinker

Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

Since both you guys have decided to ignore me, I'm curious which one of you will be first to ignore the other
I'm not ignoring you, I'm ignoring most of the ILP site. I read a few of the threads and I rarely post.

I saw that you posted in one of the threads about morality. Morality and ethics still interest me, but I have discussed it many times over the years and I don't feel any desire to rehash old points. Therefore, I didn't post in the thread.

A lot of the same topics come up all the time and a lot of the same arguments. I don't see any reason to go there again and again.
My money is on Phyllo since he's next to bandy the ball and he's been around longer (annoyed longer/less patience).
I don't know if I will respond to Karpel Tunnel. I read his posts (several times). I'm thinking about what he wrote.
I'm still not sure what to say about it. Honestly, it don't seem reasonable to say that small business owners are not capitalists.

I also don't appreciate his criticism of my posts. Maybe I want to figure out 'capitalism' before going on to discussing Christianity in general and the Sermon on the Mount in particular. Maybe I'm doing that outside of this thread, outside of posting responses to him.
But no, I'm supposed to being doing things in some special way which satisfies him.
Phyllo, who will you talk to after you inevitably ignore everyone here?
I have a life outside of ILP. I talk to people IRL. I have other interests. There are many places to go on the internet.
I mean, the only reason to talk is in disagreement as I can't imagine what two people would discuss if they were in agreement with each other, but if you disagree, you invariably get pissed and not want to talk anymore.
I pretty tired of the arrogance and negativity. I remember an anti-natalism discussion where I was called "delusional" when I said that "life is good". LOL.
The place is full of angry and depressed people. After a while, that drags you down. You gotta get away from it.
That seems a futile philosophy to hold.... unless you're depending on an eternal supply of new blood.

I'd like to see a debate where a resolution is reached. If that ever happens, I might print it out and frame it lol
I'm more interested in ILP as a source of ideas rather than as a place for arguments and debates. For example, I had never heard of anti-natalism. I had never heard of some of the books which have come up in the discussions.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10726
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: The problem of evil

phyllo wrote:
Since both you guys have decided to ignore me, I'm curious which one of you will be first to ignore the other
I'm not ignoring you, I'm ignoring most of the ILP site. I read a few of the threads and I rarely post.

I don't want to go through the effort of digging up the proof, but surely you remember specifically telling me that you're not going to talk to me anymore, or something to that effect.

I saw that you posted in one of the threads about morality. Morality and ethics still interest me, but I have discussed it many times over the years and I don't feel any desire to rehash old points. Therefore, I didn't post in the thread.

A lot of the same topics come up all the time and a lot of the same arguments. I don't see any reason to go there again and again.

I can understand that.

My money is on Phyllo since he's next to bandy the ball and he's been around longer (annoyed longer/less patience).
I don't know if I will respond to Karpel Tunnel. I read his posts (several times). I'm thinking about what he wrote.
I'm still not sure what to say about it. Honestly, it don't seem reasonable to say that small business owners are not capitalists.

Would both you guys agree that employers are probably more capitalistic (less economically social) than employees? Employees probably want laws and regulations that force the employer to be more economically social while the employer probably wants less laws and regulations that force him to do anything.

But then, by the same reasoning, the employer is a customer of his suppliers and therefore probably wants laws that protect his rights as well, but at the same time, he probably doesn't want laws affecting his ability to take advantage of his customers.

That seems sensible to me. What do you think?

I also don't appreciate his criticism of my posts. Maybe I want to figure out 'capitalism' before going on to discussing Christianity in general and the Sermon on the Mount in particular. Maybe I'm doing that outside of this thread, outside of posting responses to him.
But no, I'm supposed to being doing things in some special way which satisfies him.

I don't know what to say, but I do think the honesty is helpful.

Phyllo, who will you talk to after you inevitably ignore everyone here?
I have a life outside of ILP. I talk to people IRL. I have other interests. There are many places to go on the internet.

Well, yes, but your same philosophy applies in those places as well. Taken to the extreme eventuality, you'll have ignored everyone on earth if you could keep up with the birthrate.

I mean, the only reason to talk is in disagreement as I can't imagine what two people would discuss if they were in agreement with each other, but if you disagree, you invariably get pissed and not want to talk anymore.
I pretty tired of the arrogance and negativity. I remember an anti-natalism discussion where I was called "delusional" when I said that "life is good". LOL.

I understand perfectly. I'm beatup every day I spend on message boards. No one ever quotes a post to say "Hey that's great!", nope, they say "Wow your stupid!" or they don't say anything at all.

The place is full of angry and depressed people. After a while, that drags you down. You gotta get away from it.

Yup. If I were really happy, I wouldn't be here. I'm not looking for things when I'm content.

I'm more interested in ILP as a source of ideas rather than as a place for arguments and debates. For example, I had never heard of anti-natalism. I had never heard of some of the books which have come up in the discussions.

I suppose there is a time to listen and a time to talk. Talking about what I've heard is like digesting the ideas. After digestion, I get hungry again and go search for more ideas.
Serendipper
Thinker

Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

phyllo wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:Christian capitalists discussing morally or ethics makes me lolz. Can there be any bigger hypocrites in this world?
In what sense are they hypocrites?

In a Christian society, food needs to be grow, goods need to be manufactured, products need to be distributed. It's not possible for everyone to give away all his possessions and wander the desert.

Christianity talks about equality and global brotherhood under God, funny how with Christians they do the exact opposite of everything they supposedly believe in.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast

Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

### Re: The problem of evil

Christianity talks about equality and global brotherhood under God, funny how with Christians they do the exact opposite of everything they supposedly believe in.
"equality"?

"global brotherhood"?

"exact opposite"?

Whatever all that means.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10726
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: The problem of evil

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Anti-capitalist. There's also the whole treasures section of the sermon that goes against capital accumulation. IOW you should not have a system structure to create shored up treasures, since this is anti-Christian.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker

Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

I don't want to go through the effort of digging up the proof, but surely you remember specifically telling me that you're not going to talk to me anymore, or something to that effect.
I'm not hanging on to my petty reactions and irritations.

But thanks for bringing it up.
Would both you guys agree that employers are probably more capitalistic (less economically social) than employees? Employees probably want laws and regulations that force the employer to be more economically social while the employer probably wants less laws and regulations that force him to do anything.

But then, by the same reasoning, the employer is a customer of his suppliers and therefore probably wants laws that protect his rights as well, but at the same time, he probably doesn't want laws affecting his ability to take advantage of his customers.

That seems sensible to me. What do you think?
Employers (or rather owners) have access to capital and are willing to use it to make a profit.

Sure, people want to take advantage of laws and want laws and regulations which favor them in general. Owners, employers and employees all want that. In a fair system, there is balance.

I understand that the criticism of capitalism is that it is unfair and that it allows those with money, the capitalists, to exploit those without money, the workers. But if you look at the history, there have been genuine and effective actions to reduce the unfairness. And the standard of living of the worker classes has risen substantially.
Well, yes, but your same philosophy applies in those places as well. Taken to the extreme eventuality, you'll have ignored everyone on earth if you could keep up with the birthrate.
Not really. There may come a day when I don't want write anything on ILP, but it doesn't mean that I won't be involved in another forum or IRL conversations. And as I said, that's not necessarily something I will hang on to forever ... I reevaluate all the time.
I suppose there is a time to listen and a time to talk. Talking about what I've heard is like digesting the ideas.
Reminds me of : "We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak." - Epictetus
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10726
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: The problem of evil

phyllo wrote:Employers (or rather owners) have access to capital and are willing to use it to make a profit.

Sure, people want to take advantage of laws and want laws and regulations which favor them in general. Owners, employers and employees all want that. In a fair system, there is balance.
In the most fair capitalist system capital can make money without labor, and does. A capitalist system would allow the taking away of livlihood of someone who does not do their physical labor well, enough hours, or at all. The capitalist need not labor, while the laborer must. This does not fit with do unto others. Of course many capitalists do also labor, but fundmentally, they accrue wealth, power, safety, better health care for their children and more AND can do this without labor. I expect you to exert effort and energy to get benefits and fundamentals for your life, but I do not expect this of myself. And I will pressure the system to enforce this difference in treatment. Though of course the laws within a capitalist nation mean this must be the case.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker

Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

phyllo wrote:
Christianity talks about equality and global brotherhood under God, funny how with Christians they do the exact opposite of everything they supposedly believe in.
"equality"?

"global brotherhood"?

"exact opposite"?

Whatever all that means.

Ah, another Christian that hasn't read the bible. I rest my case.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast

Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

### Re: The problem of evil

Zero_Sum wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Christianity talks about equality and global brotherhood under God, funny how with Christians they do the exact opposite of everything they supposedly believe in.
"equality"?

"global brotherhood"?

"exact opposite"?

Whatever all that means.

Ah, another Christian that hasn't read the bible. I rest my case.
One sentence, containing a few nebulous words, sums up your thinking.

Yeah, you can rest now.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10726
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: The problem of evil

phyllo wrote:I understand that the criticism of capitalism is that it is unfair and that it allows those with money, the capitalists, to exploit those without money, the workers. But if you look at the history, there have been genuine and effective actions to reduce the unfairness. And the standard of living of the worker classes has risen substantially.

And that explains the prosperity since FDR.

Reminds me of : "We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak." - Epictetus

Yes but the mouth is so much bigger

Plus I have 2 hands and 10 fingers so typing must be REALLY important
Serendipper
Thinker

Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

phyllo wrote:One sentence, containing a few nebulous words, sums up your thinking.

Yeah, you can rest now.

Prove otherwise, you won't or can't.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast

Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

### Re: The problem of evil

Zero_Sum wrote:
phyllo wrote:One sentence, containing a few nebulous words, sums up your thinking.

Yeah, you can rest now.

Prove otherwise, you won't or can't.
Prove what? Your words have such huge ranges of meaning, I don't even know what you are saying.

What does "equality" mean when a group of people uses it as a basis for a society? Obviously, all individuals are different and there will always be inequality in some sense.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10726
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: The problem of evil

Serendipper wrote:Capitalism = zero regulation
Socialism = greater than zero, but less than 100% regulation
fascism/communism = 100% regulated.

No.

The correct term for regulation in an otherwise capitalistic economy is Social Democracy, not Socialism. Socialism is a means towards Communism with "employees" forcibly taking over the State (which arguably only needs to exist to moderate otherwise unfettered Capitalism) to cease the practice of private ownership of the means of production (Capitalism). It's not simply a regulated Capitalism. Furthermore, the difference between Anarchists and Communists is that Anarchists simply wish to abolish the State altogether, where Communists, upon overtaking the State, seek only to allow their own State to "wither away" and give way to communes (hence Communism) - basically businesses with no owner, everything is "owned" collectively by whomever uses and is control of anything in the workplace at any given time, fluidly.

As you can see, Communism isn't even that different to Capitalism, it was merely appropriated simultaneously by both the US and the USSR but for different reasons. The USSR wanted to take advantage of the good names of Socialism and Communism despite more or less being its opposite: an authoritarian dictatorship. What about that is the same as working-class owned self-running communes? And the US wanted to denigrate the good names of Socialism and Communism by agreeing that the bad state of things in USSR is what it looks like in practice - forevermore lumping together the words Socialism and Communism with Totalitarianism and words such Fascism like you used. Ever noticed how people always feel the need to combine one of these terms with another, as if one isn't enough by itself, needing to be somehow clarified with another? It's almost as if they aren't quite sure which they mean or at least they aren't convinced other people will know exactly what they mean if they use only one - and the reason why is what I've just explained.

This very conveniently fits Socialism and Communism in with the more left-leaning party of the two you always seem to see in western democracies, such that you're either supporting the left or the right or just variations of the same thing, and they just take turns to run things in slightly different ways like two sports teams pitted against one another - essentially resulting in a single party state. The reality is that there are variations, and it's not just a sliding scale between two extremes of pure Capitalism and complete State-regulation.

Pretty evil stuff.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 3308
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: The problem of evil

Government workers should be voluntary and not be paid. Or they will continue to vote themselves more money and higher salaries.

Socialism revolves around corrupt government (a huge bloc of the population, govt workers, voting themselves most of the money and consuming taxes themselves).
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1070
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

Silhouette wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Capitalism = zero regulation
Socialism = greater than zero, but less than 100% regulation
fascism/communism = 100% regulated.

No.

The correct term for regulation in an otherwise capitalistic economy is Social Democracy, not Socialism.

Why include the word "democracy"? That implies regulations are the result of democratic consensus.

Regulations are for the good of society, but they aren't voted into effect by society.

Socialism is a means towards Communism with "employees" forcibly taking over the State (which arguably only needs to exist to moderate otherwise unfettered Capitalism) to cease the practice of private ownership of the means of production (Capitalism). It's not simply a regulated Capitalism.

The problem with that definition is that not all socialists want communism (state controlled means of production). Myself, for instance, I believe capitalism is the best way, but it needs to be tempered for the good of society. For example, I don't believe the gov could dictate a novel and interesting product into existence like free-market competition can, but for the good of society, they shouldn't be allowed to use lead or radioactive paint while otherwise freely competing. Companies can't dump waste into rivers in order to compete more effectively; they can't offer dog meat labeled as chicken; and they shouldn't be allowed to grind up euthanized pets into pet food, but they do because "that's capitalism". Without regulation, the capitalist will resort to every underhanded trick he can devise because, if he doesn't, someone else will.

Ism is defined as a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice. "Social" is defined as living in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation. So "social+ism" = is the practice of living in companionship with others in a community, but not communal.

Furthermore, the difference between Anarchists and Communists is that Anarchists simply wish to abolish the State altogether, where Communists, upon overtaking the State, seek only to allow their own State to "wither away" and give way to communes (hence Communism) - basically businesses with no owner, everything is "owned" collectively by whomever uses and is control of anything in the workplace at any given time, fluidly.

Anarchists and Communists are two polar extremes. The capitalist doesn't advocate elimination of the gov, but only all regulations affecting the practice of his amassing of capital, so it could be described as "economically anarchistic".

As you can see, Communism isn't even that different to Capitalism, it was merely appropriated simultaneously by both the US and the USSR but for different reasons.

Communism is essentially one big corporation in competition with 1000s of smaller ones in a capitalistic market. Alan Watts said at the height of the Vietnam War, "I wouldn't think you'd need to fight it; it should just fall apart because it's terribly inefficient." And he was right; it did fall apart and it was terribly inefficient. The free market is akin to natural selection and the tempering of capitalism with regulation is akin to humanity regulating nature with artificial selection.

The USSR wanted to take advantage of the good names of Socialism and Communism despite more or less being its opposite: an authoritarian dictatorship. What about that is the same as working-class owned self-running communes? And the US wanted to denigrate the good names of Socialism and Communism by agreeing that the bad state of things in USSR is what it looks like in practice - forevermore lumping together the words Socialism and Communism with Totalitarianism and words such Fascism like you used. Ever noticed how people always feel the need to combine one of these terms with another, as if one isn't enough by itself, needing to be somehow clarified with another? It's almost as if they aren't quite sure which they mean or at least they aren't convinced other people will know exactly what they mean if they use only one - and the reason why is what I've just explained.

Everyone has personalized definitions with no standardization somewhat like "awareness, perception, consciousness" are conflated and interchangeable instead of being mutually exclusive in meaning.

That is why I say let's scrap all our preconceived notions and proclivities for what we want words to mean and lets instead devise proper definitions, such as what I proposed:

Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits.

Pretty simple; no definitions overlap; every one is distinct, and nothing is left out.

I've posted this 3 or 4 times on here and each time someone comes along objecting on the basis that they are evidently socialist, but can't tolerate the label of "socialist" and prefer to be called a capitalist even though they're in favor of a whole laundry list of regulations, such as food inspection, toxic waste dumping, etc.

Apparently some people want to define capitalism as, oh I don't know, say, 10% regulation or some arbitrary number greater than zero, but that makes the definition completely arbitrary and subjective and that defeats the purpose of having a definition. Folks will just have to let go of their connotations concerning the word "socialism" and, in other words, just get over it already.

This very conveniently fits Socialism and Communism in with the more left-leaning party of the two you always seem to see in western democracies, such that you're either supporting the left or the right or just variations of the same thing, and they just take turns to run things in slightly different ways like two sports teams pitted against one another - essentially resulting in a single party state. The reality is that there are variations, and it's not just a sliding scale between two extremes of pure Capitalism and complete State-regulation.

Pretty evil stuff.

Yup, extremes are bad. The middle way is the best way.

Capitalism is the base-reality because as soon as trade developed, someone brought a product to a market that had no gov regulation, then someone objected to advantages taken and propositioned for an authority to regulate the market. So if we take a hands-off approach, capitalism will prevail and therefore that is the base-reality from where we start. From there we add regulations until perfection is found or until the gov totally takes over.

There are two states: hands-off and hands-on. Once you decide to put a hand on, it's socialism, because the only reason you're seeking to put a hand on for control is for the good of society and not profits, which take care of themselves.
Serendipper
Thinker

Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Government workers should be voluntary and not be paid. Or they will continue to vote themselves more money and higher salaries.

Socialism revolves around corrupt government (a huge bloc of the population, govt workers, voting themselves most of the money and consuming taxes themselves).

The problem is we need gov jobs so that people have jobs because "people must suffer for money". Because we can't just hand people money for nothing, we must make them dig a hole and fill it back in again (ie the IRS). We could have a streamlined tax code, but it would put the IRS, the tax industry, and many lawyers out of a job. We've created a lot of jobs simply by complicating to the code for absolutely no reason other than because "people must suffer for money", so we need to find ways to make them suffer.

We're going to need more of these meaningless jobs in the future as automation progresses.
Serendipper
Thinker

Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: The problem of evil

Guys, I'm telling you how Socialism and Communism were actually defined by Lenin and why your definitions are colloquially warped appropriations - why then go on to just repeat them?

Serendipper wrote:Why include the word "democracy"? That implies regulations are the result of democratic consensus

Social Democracy is a real term, dude. I'm not just shoving two words together.
And regulations are a result of democratic consensus, it's just that most people aren't involved in it.
That's why our democracy is openly and intentionally an indirect democracy, where we democratically choose which people we want to democratically legitimise regulations.

Serendipper wrote:The problem with that definition is that not all socialists want communism (state controlled means of production).

As I said, Communism is working class collective control of the means of production without a state (because it has withered away).
You can't be a Socialist without wanting Communism when you understand and accept what these terms were actually designed to mean before they were attributed to something else and everyone just went with that instead.
As I said, Socialism is the initial working class revolution of taking over the State, using its power to cease the practice of private ownership of the means of production (Capitalism), in the belief that this will cause the state to wither away because it's no longer needed - opening up the change from Socialism (with a working class controlled State) to Communism (working class control without a state).
You aren't a Socialist without the above and you aren't a Communist without the above. The state not being controlled by the working class is Totalitarianism, the state not being controlled by the working class but instead a single dictator is Autocracy. Stateless control by those with capital is Capitalism. This is why we have different terms for all these different power structures, they mean different things. A working class controlled state would be a variation on Socialism, and an indirectly democratic state control to regulate Capitalism is Social Democracy.

Serendipper wrote:Anarchists and Communists are two polar extremes.

Communism is essentially one big corporation in competition with 1000s of smaller ones in a capitalistic market.

Nope. See above. Want to argue with Lenin? He was there and could confirm this, but he's dead so you'll just have to read his books.

Serendipper wrote:Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits.

Fascism - gov controls 100% of the means of production and keeps 100% of the profits.
Communism - lack of centralised gov of collective working class controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of the profit (because they're 100% of the people).
Socialism - gov of collective working class controls 100% of the means of production and keeps 100% of the profit (because they're 100% of the people).
Capitalism - lack of centralised gov of capitalists control 100% of the means of production and keep 100% of the profit.
Social Democracy - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of the profits.

Serendipper wrote:Apparently some people want to define capitalism as, oh I don't know, say, 10% regulation or some arbitrary number greater than zero, but that makes the definition completely arbitrary and subjective and that defeats the purpose of having a definition. Folks will just have to let go of their connotations concerning the word "socialism" and, in other words, just get over it already.

This sounds like Minarchism.

Serendipper wrote:Myself, for instance, I believe capitalism is the best way, but it needs to be tempered for the good of society. For example, I don't believe the gov could dictate a novel and interesting product into existence like free-market competition can, but for the good of society, they shouldn't be allowed to use lead or radioactive paint while otherwise freely competing. Companies can't dump waste into rivers in order to compete more effectively; they can't offer dog meat labeled as chicken; and they shouldn't be allowed to grind up euthanized pets into pet food, but they do because "that's capitalism". Without regulation, the capitalist will resort to every underhanded trick he can devise because, if he doesn't, someone else will.

I agree with this justifiably cynical attitude towards Capitalism.

Serendipper wrote:Yup, extremes are bad. The middle way is the best way.

Capitalism is the base-reality because as soon as trade developed, someone brought a product to a market that had no gov regulation, then someone objected to advantages taken and propositioned for an authority to regulate the market. So if we take a hands-off approach, capitalism will prevail and therefore that is the base-reality from where we start. From there we add regulations until perfection is found or until the gov totally takes over.

There are two states: hands-off and hands-on. Once you decide to put a hand on, it's socialism, because the only reason you're seeking to put a hand on for control is for the good of society and not profits, which take care of themselves.

I disagree that the middle way is always the best way. To confirm that I am not intending to commit a black-or-white fallacy, I am not saying that extremes are always the best, I am saying that it can depend.

Trade doesn't necessarily mean capitalism if property is not thought of as private - with or without a government to enforce it.
It's not capitalism if the means of production are not privately owned, even if the products of production are privately owned, and none of this necessitates that a profit is the goal, allowed by either gov or socially accepted moral norms.

And it's not as simple as hands-off or hands-on, it matters whose hands are off/on.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 3308
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

PreviousNext