(October 2, 2010 at 6:30 am)Existentialist Wrote: We have never had a communist society

And there's a reason why.

The "True Scotsman" that you're looking for, the "True Communist Society", is no more attainable than the Christian heaven. There's no reason to think the "worldwide" system would make any difference.

However, as an ex-Reagan worshiping Republican who believed in this "trickle down" theory of economics, I can tell you it does, in retrospect, have some faith-like elements. You had to believe that the tax cuts for the wealthy would lead to job growth for all. You had to believe that the rising deficits that resulted would be paid for with the economic expansion that was coming. You have to believe that government "is the problem" and deregulation will lead to massive prosperity for all. Just as ex-Christians can't believe they actually believed the Bible, I can't believe I once read Atlas Shrugged and thought it was economic gold. Now I realize what a pile of strawman crap it all is.

These days, I believe life's a balance. Neither government nor business are evil nor are they the answer to all our problem. They just are what they are and they have roles to play. I believe in regulated capitalism. Businesses produce wealth and the government keeps them honest. Too much power in either camp spoils it for the rest of us.

---

(October 2, 2010 at 3:23 am)Zen Badger Wrote: To paraphrase Churchill,

Capitalism is the worst system of all, apart from all the others.

BINGO!

(October 2, 2010 at 8:48 am)Ace Wrote: Personaly I don't give a rats arse about politics.

Those who claim not to be political are in reality far more political than those who openly admit they are being political.

Quote:Don't really care what a country does or how badly it screws up.
I'm not with capitalism and not entirely with socialism either. I'm with some socalist ideals.
If it means better social equality, rights and freedom then I'm all for it. Socalism or not.

A Liberal Pragmatist! Tories love you.

---

(October 2, 2010 at 9:41 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: The "True Scotsman" that you're looking for, the "True Communist Society"

That I'm looking for? How do you work that out?

Quote:These days, I believe life's a balance. Neither government nor business are evil nor are they the answer to all our problem. They just are what they are and they have roles to play. I believe in regulated capitalism. Businesses produce wealth and the government keeps them honest. Too much power in either camp spoils it for the rest of us.

Another Liberal! With all this centre-right support, it's no surprise the conservatives are in government, and most of them seem to be atheists!

Quote:

(October 2, 2010 at 3:23 am)Zen Badger Wrote: To paraphrase Churchill,
Capitalism is the worst system of all, apart from all the others.

BINGO!

Stop! The church at Bladon will fall down if this grave-turning carries on!

(October 2, 2010 at 9:45 am)Existentialist Wrote: Stop! The church at Bladon will fall down if this grave-turning carries on!

That is why he said "paraphrase".

The original Churchill quote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

I don't see any reason why you can't change the word democracy to "capitalism". He wasn't saying that Churchill agreed with it; in fact, Churchill said this of capitalism:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

By all means misquote Churchill, it's a free country!

The grumpy old right-winger needs the exercise anyway.

It's not a misquote. It's a paraphrase.

Unless you were referring to my inclusion of the quote "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.", which I have the source for:

22 October 1945 Speech to the House of Commons.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commo...olumn_1703

Another you might not like: "Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."

(October 2, 2010 at 9:40 am)Existentialist Wrote:

(October 2, 2010 at 8:54 am)Zen Badger Wrote: No system is perfect.

No system CAN be perfect.

Because once you put people in the equation it'll be immediately fucked.

I agree totally. There is no perfect system. It is still legitimate to talk about capitalism, its limitations, its anti-democratic fundamentals, and its profoundly religious nature. To talk about religion - in particular, the residual religions that are on the wane like christianity, judaism and islam, without talking about capitalism is to confine atheist discussion to a backwater.

Once you set down your ideas in stone though you're doomed to fail, because the world changes and if an ideology doesnt change then it ceases to be of any benefit.

The only true ideology that can sustain and maintain progress at the same time is the same one that the romans used;

adapt to your environment, unite your allies and assimilate your opponents.



The problem with capitalism... ah i could go on for hours about the problems.. but what's right with it is a better question. And simply, it exploits human greed and does nothing to make anything better. You could even say with even the most destructive examples of human ideology that at least those people had a noble goal in the very beginning.

(October 2, 2010 at 11:58 am)Tiberius Wrote: It's not a misquote. It's a paraphrase.

And I thought you liked dictionary definitions!

misquote [ˌmɪsˈkwəʊt]
vb
to quote (a text, speech, etc.) inaccurately
misquotation n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

par·a·phrase (pr-frz)
n.
1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.
2. The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device.

I suppose a misquote can be a paraphrase, and vice versa - the two are not mutually exclusive. Nevertheless I would suggest that a paraphrase includes the quality of changing words to clarify the original meaning, not changing words to change the original meaning. Substituting the word capitalism for democracy is a bit of a change of meaning really. But if you prefer to use the word paraphrase on the basis that Churchill once said something else, then please go ahead, I'm not a dictionary fascist after all! It just goes to show that people choose the same words to mean different things according to their subjective view! The best person to tell us who's right is the one twirling faster than the drum in my spin dryer 6 feet down in a small graveyard in Oxfordshire.

(October 2, 2010 at 6:30 am)Existentialist Wrote: This is a false polarity. Communism and Capitalism aren't on a sliding scale, with one at one end and the other at the other in their "pure" form. Capitalism is flexible - it bends and adjusts to pressure to neutralise revolutionary forces before they destroy it, so capitalism in its "pure" form includes massive concessions. We have never had a communist society so we cannot know whether communism leads to totalitarianism or not; communism would need to be a worldwide phenomenon, not one set up in a minority of countries acting as nation states, for us to judge. I'm not saying I would advocate that, but I do feel the need to accurately assess my role and position in the religion of capitalism, as we all should.

I have to point out a number of things.
First of all - I didn't list those up there to be two different ends of the same scale. My entire point was that both things lead to a large group of individuals within a single nation being being absolutely controlled by a few. With Capitalism, it only starts out as freedom for all, but Capitalism is a game you can win and the winner get everything.
Communism starts out with all the power belonging to the government. Whether that government itself is a democracy or whatever - it's all the power of the entire country in the hands of a few state officials. Two systems - the exact same result.

Second, the reason I stated them as being 'pure' capitalism and 'pure' communism is because both of those are ideals but neither have been truely implimented as such.

The 'religion' of capitalism exists entirely because it's believed to be the purest form of freedom but that freedom won't actually exist unless there's a balance of power that prevents those with the most wealth and affluence from controlling those without. The same goes for government.

(October 2, 2010 at 9:45 am)Existentialist Wrote: That I'm looking for? How do you work that out?

Because you said so? You used the "well, they weren't true communists" argument.

(October 2, 2010 at 12:56 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: Communism starts out with all the power belonging to the government. Whether that government itself is a democracy or whatever - it's all the power of the entire country in the hands of a few state officials. Two systems - the exact same result.

That's a funny analysis of communism. Where did you get that from - the Capitalist Guide to Anti-Communist Propaganda?

Quote:The 'religion' of capitalism exists entirely because it's believed to be the purest form of freedom but that freedom won't actually exist unless there's a balance of power that prevents those with the most wealth and affluence from controlling those without. The same goes for government.

So you want free market capitalism tempered by controls. Another Liberal! At this rate you guys could form a government!