That must be why there are so many successful socialist countries...oh wait.

Quote:That must be why there are so many successful socialist countries...oh wait.

What do you mean?
Countries who fear socialism (America) are pretty much developing countries, they dont even have a public health care system! Socialism is the best system we have...

(October 9, 2010 at 12:15 am)solja247 Wrote: What do you mean?
Countries who fear socialism (America) are pretty much developing countries, they dont even have a public health care system! Socialism is the best system we have...

I can't help but notice that most socialist countries with any modicrum of success allow for, shall I say, 'capitalist' tendancies. I believe that's why Russia and China have been steadily improving their economies. India, of course, is a democracy like the US and every bit the capitalist. They are also a rising superpower.

Notice a tendancy?

(October 9, 2010 at 5:05 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(October 9, 2010 at 12:15 am)solja247 Wrote: What do you mean?
Countries who fear socialism (America) are pretty much developing countries, they dont even have a public health care system! Socialism is the best system we have...

I can't help but notice that most socialist countries with any modicrum of success allow for, shall I say, 'capitalist' tendancies. I believe that's why Russia and China have been steadily improving their economies. India, of course, is a democracy like the US and every bit the capitalist. They are also a rising superpower.

Notice a tendancy?

So which developed capitalist countries with any modicum of success had done so without allowing for what right wingers would call "socialist" tendencies?

And no, democratic India is not every bit as capitalist like the US. It is actually extremely bureaucratic with very deeply entrenched socialistic expectation on the part of vast majority of it's population that no hopeful candidate, thanks to it's democratic system, can think of leaving unfilled. This is why in "capitalist and democratic" India the the old line Marxist indian communist party is often the power broker in the government.

Communist China, on the other hand, has an extremely capitalistic system for it's private sector, far less regulated than most sectors of US economy. The socialistic expectations built up during Mao years has been cavalierly trampled by the next communist government as it totally dismantled the old welfare state, which it could do because it was not democratic and did not stand to lose elections. .

So it appears the relationship between degrees of socialism, degrees of democracy, and degree of economic success is far more complicated than overconfident, under-informed ideologues is capable of understanding.

(October 9, 2010 at 5:31 am)Chuck Wrote: So which developed capitalist countries with any modicum of success had done so without allowing for what right wingers would call "socialist" tendencies?

I didn't imply otherwise... at least not intentionally.
Most successful countries have elements of both to varying extents.

(October 9, 2010 at 5:31 am)Chuck Wrote: And no, India is not every bit as capitalist like the US. It is actually extremely bureaucratic with very deeply entrenched socialistic expectation on the part of vast majority of it's population that no hopeful candidate, thanks to it's democratic system, can think of leaving unfilled. This is why the old line Marxist indian communist party can still be the power broker in Indian government.

So they're a democratic society with a regulated capitalist economic system with very different problems from us but problems none the less of their own.

(October 9, 2010 at 5:31 am)Chuck Wrote: So it appears the relationship between degrees of socialism, degrees of democracy, and degree of economic success is far more complicated than overconfident, under-informed ideologues is capable of understanding.

I completely agree.

(October 4, 2010 at 8:58 pm)theVOID Wrote: I still don't think you've made a case for Capitalism being religion. Communism bears much more resemblance.

Thanks for this earlier comment, sorry, too busy with other comments to reply at the time. I totally agree that communism also bears more than a striking resemblance to a religion. Communism was dependent on a pre-existing stage of capitalism for its existence. So what could we possibly call an ideology that is dependent on the overthrow of another religion for its existence? It's obviously another religion.

I don't count the USSR / China / North Korea model as communism. These models look more like the famous description of "State capitalism", a critical analysis favoured by the SWP. It's the sort of capitalism where the State, in effect, acts on the world stage as well as on its own territory as one big capitalist company. It's a pretty nasty model, even if their discipline is so good they can set their soldiers up in extremely colourful, perfect straight lines. Onward Christian soldiers, you might say.

But the point is, I'm an atheist. No religion with a God, like Capitalism with Capital, or Communism with Lenin, nor sects like State Capitalism with Stalin, is going to satisfy my atheistic needs. Hence my rejection of both communism and capitalism as systems suitable for me as an atheist (although I think some communists are particularly good at analysing the motivations of capitalism)

I've been asked, if I'm so anti-capitalist that I'm prepared describe it as a religion, what does describing myself as an atheist in relation to it mean?

As far as the economic aspects of the system are concerned - I don't really know, to be honest. One economic system is much like another - you only need to change the rules. But I also see the social and political drawbacks of capitalism, so I tend to argue for a different kind of democracy (a genuine one) and different assumptions about what society expects of people.

If Capital is the God of capitalism, does that mean that I don't believe in capital? Well, obviously it doesn't mean that, since i'm the one arguing that Capital is being treated as a God. I do believe that Capital is being treated as a God, and in an insidious way, a way that is characterised by denial and dismissiveness but immediately followed up by actions which imply the opposite. So for me as an anti-capitalistic atheist my atheism comes in at the point where I observe pro-capitalists treating Capital as God, and where they deny that they are treating it as a God. It makes for a slightly complicated position where both I and pro-capitalists deny that Capital is a God, and yet I'm in a theological argument with them about it. I don't expect to win this one easily, but I'm not abandoning the attempt.

(October 8, 2010 at 8:15 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: First of all, if you had linked me to posts that had anything to do with the topic, I would have responded to them. I've been participating in the capitalism/religion discussion since page 2 (the first post up there on page 2, none the less) and I've ready read your posts. The only reason I've been posting more often recently is because I chose not to get involved with the whole churchhill/misquote/paraphrase debacle you had going on with Adrian and others.

Actually every single one of the posts I referred you to #1, #20, #36, #38, #54, #56, #66, and #67 was directly to do with the topic. I didn't link you to any of the Churchill posts. I agree you made some contemptuous comments about one or two of the middle ones apart from #1 and #20. I see no comments at all from you about my references to the work of Walter Benjamin, although when I referenced Marx you did make a dismissive remark telling me to have my own ideas and that I should not quote other writers.

Thank you for now partially replying to Post #1. I agree that I state a number of things which I believe to be true although it is particularly ungenerous to dismiss them all as "baseless assertions". Not only that, if you read the post, over three quarters of my remarks are posed in the form of questions, inviting others to comment on what I think are quite reasonable and interesting ideas. Your assertion that all the posts I've referred you to have "absolutely nothing to do with the discussion we're having" is bizarre, they're all central to it as relevant as they can be. Other than a couple of short paragraphs which I'll attend to later in this post, your "countering" of my arguments consists of nothing more than saying (I paraphrase you) "that's not true". And that's it! That's your counter-argument to my idea that capitalism is a religion! Thanks for demonstrating your debating skills so fully!

You ask why atheists would have a 'stance' as atheists about capitalism. My argument is that capitalism is a religion, so atheists, being at the very least sceptical of religious ideas, should be as vociferous and as rejecting of capitalism as they are about rejecting christianity, islam and judaism. But they tend not to be, and that makes me wonder why.

You assert that, "No one worships capital as a god." Really that simple sentence takes us back to the debate at the core of my argument, but no further forward in terms of examining its validity. I say people do worship capital as a god, because by worship I mean they regard it with ardent devotion: they do degrees in the study of it, build careers around it, businesses and industries, start wars over it and they cut public services on the basis of its needs, treating anyone who disagrees as blasphemous.

You keep asking for evidence. I know what I'm going to say will probably give you a pretext for another bout of dismissive remarks, but on the subject of evidence I'd better just make it clear that I see "evidence" as a relatively minor player when it comes to philosophical or political ideas, for a couple of reasons. I often say that if I were presented with a valid proof of the existence of God, it wouldn't stop me being an atheist. If it got to the stage of being presented with a valid proof of such a ridiculous idea, I would have to doubt my own sanity (really, don't feel the need to comment on that) so the validity of my interpretation of the evidence would be flawed. For this reason, evidence is generally kinda interesting but by no means conclusive in philosophy.

I am far more interested in the coherence of people's arguments than I am in evidence. I don't dismiss evidence, but equally I know that in philosophy, the presentation of evidence often leads to demands for more evidence. You end up with a mass of perplexing evidence, but at the end of the day you still have to make your own decision what to believe. The process is the same with people who insist that dictionary definitions of words are the only legitimate tool for interpreting the use of words in debates about philosophical concepts. The problem I see is that for every dictionary definition you then need to start looking up all the words containing the definition. This eventually gets you nowhere. Far better to discuss the internal coherence of the arguments people are putting forward, and to agree to disagree if you cannot reach agreement.

Therefore I think the arguments that I've put forward in the list of posts I've referenced above are self-supporting: they support each other, because they fit with each other and there are no internal contradictions. If you managed to point out any coherent internal contradictions then I'd have more respect for your position, but just repeating "That's not true" and "where's your evidence?" isn't what I'd call a coherent counter-argument to the ideas that I've presented.

Now I mentioned that you did say a couple of other things that I'd come back to. First you said that I've defined capitalism and religion both so broadly that anything popular or any form of governing or economic system can be a religion according to my own arguments. I'd disagree with that and here's why. You gave an argument that Superman fandom can be said to be a religion. Well - it's more a cult than a religion. I'd say a cult is just applicable to the limited number of people under its influence, whereas a religion is more fundamental to a bigger proportion of the population because it's about beliefs and values pervade the whole social structure.

I'd be inclined to agree that systems of government can be religions - Soviet communism, for example, I'd wouldn't deny anyone the right who lived under that system to define it as a religion, although personally I think it's a subset of capitalism. But I wouldn't say that the British system of government as compared to the French system are different religions. Their influence on each respective population is relatively small compared to the worldwide demands of capitalism, to which all governments must defer.

You also said that capitalism professes no beliefs about existence and the purpose of life, morality, so it can't be a religion. In response to that I'd say first that capitalism doesn't have to profess any beliefs about the existence and purpose of life in order to be a religion. As it happens, I think that most capitalist propaganda does suggest that the profit principle applies to everyone and there is a whole moral code around living within your means and not making others pay for your needs, for example through the welfare state. One capitalist teaching would therefore be that people must get through life while balancing the books, and not make a loss - don't allow your expenditure to exceed your income over your lifetime. A lot of thinking about welfare is influenced by this profoundly moral belief which ties into the capitalist work ethic among other things.

You say that there is no central figure or figures of worship or anything to worship, like Jesus, Bhudda, Zeus, Hercules, Anubis, and so on. I'd ask you, does a religion really have to have a central figure to worship in order to be a religion? I don't think so. However, despite this I am arguing that Capital is the central figure, and is personified in many forms: the accountant, the Treasury Minister, the Governor of the Bank. But there is no requirement that this central figure should be a person or even that there should be a central figure at all. Usually there is such a figure, but it is not compulsory, and in any event I think Capitalism has one.

You then said "there are no tenants of faith, rules, or codes in which a person is to live their life by" Well I think that one tenet of faith is that capitalism is an inevitable system, a "given" and that anyone who argues against it is mad or a troublemaker. Rules are elaborated around the profit principle and the guilt associated with failing to live up to it.

Quote:The closest arguement for capitalism in this respect is the social order aspect of an economic system but religion typically covers a person's code of behavior and not simply the method in which they maneuver in a social-economic way. In other words, capitalism doesn't tell you if murder is right or wrong or how you should live your life.

I have difficulty understanding the first sentence or how murder relates to it. I recognise that capitalism per se does not identify murder as a moral outrage - I wonder if that is why it has continued to allow the other religions their existence. There is no point in capitalism allowing christianity, islam etc to exist if they do not have a function that is beneficial to capitalism. Establishing the moral unacceptability of murder may well not be something that capitalism is very good at, infact in terms of the number of people who have been directly killed by forces defending capitalism attacking demonstrations and political meetings I would agree that capitalism is particularly bad on recognising the subject of murder. This is an issue on which it would seem prudent to delegate responsibility to the sub-religions to lend an air of respectability to a moral code.

You said that there are no "rituals of any kind that are similar to any religious connotation or similarities. In other words, there are no capitalist weddings, celebrations, or observations." Weddings tend to be an excuse for a party. Marriage is highly useful to capitalism as it establishes a productive unit of consumption. I agree that capitalism delegates the recognition of this legal arrangement to the sub-religions because they tend to be better at it. Capitalism must tread a careful path: if it is too blatent in its interference in everyday life then it exposes itself to the risk of being replaced by a more rational, less oppressive system. That's why the other religions are tolerated: to lend legitimacy to rituals and morals that are necessary to the survival of the capitalist system.

Does the fact that some Christians believe the Earth is 6,000 years old mean that Christianity involves that belief? No. Likewise, just because some capitalists may believe in capital as a God (although you've yet to cite any sources for that), doesn't mean that capitalism involves the elevation of capital to god-like status.

Your argument is flawed from the start because at no point in the definition (oh noes! not those!) of capitalism does it ever suggest anything even remotely religious.

China cheats for it success anyway reason why they are so afraid of america and europe cracking on it's cheating devices

Calling capitalism a religion literally is pushing it a bit far. There are definitely figurative comparisons you can draw. But capitalism has no supernatural higher power, which is part of the definition of religion. Unless you count the Free Market Fairy as a supernatural higher power.