Capitalism is un-Christian.

[Barothmuk]

I'm from the distant future of 2016. It's all true. 

[Qistina]

Given Bruce's desire for a large coalition of neoliberal republics(so long as they vote right, if not a new leadership is put on charge) and Qisinta's dogmatic Islamic beliefs, their children will install a series of Islamic Capitalist Republics in Europe and band them together as Islamic Capitalist European Democratic-Territories or ICED-T. Through ICED-T hey will slowly spread throughout the world creating a Caliphate known as Confederate of the Original Brotherhood Republics of Allah or COBRA.

 

I am a socialist...and i believe Islam support socialism

 

I am a fan of a banned Malayan political party, PKMM (Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya/Malayan Malay Nationalist Party) in which Islamic socialists, banned by British before indipendence by labelling them communists in which not true.

 

Islam support free trade if you don't already know, trade is via agreement between buyers and traders, no monopoly and no price control. So islam is incompatible with Capitalism.

 

Islam against usury, taking interests

[Namutree]

Given Bruce's desire for a large coalition of neoliberal republics(so long as they vote right, if not a new leadership is put on charge) and Qisinta's dogmatic Islamic beliefs, their children will install a series of Islamic Capitalist Republics in Europe and band them together as Islamic Capitalist European Democratic-Territories or ICED-T. Through ICED-T hey will slowly spread throughout the world creating a Caliphate known as Confederate of the Original Brotherhood Republics of Allah or COBRA.

This is probably my favorite post. Good job.

[Namutree]

Bump for awesomeness.

 

Christianity has no basis in ties to any economic system. Islam however is explicitly incompatible with socialism due to the requirements of respecting property and as such is suited to capitalism or feudalism. Prove me wrong my property.

Technically Islam also is incompatible with capitalism as it forbids usury.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Namutree

[Calax]

On a scale of 1 to 10 how drunk are you?

 

I, as always, am a solid 7 no matter what the question is.

Right now, about a 9... not quite over the edge into "drunken depression" but at the point where typing makes my mind have a few conniptions about making sure to write correctly (for some reason).

[Gorgon]

Bump for awesomeness.

 

 

2009. Wow.

[Qistina]

 

Bump for awesomeness.

 

Christianity has no basis in ties to any economic system. Islam however is explicitly incompatible with socialism due to the requirements of respecting property and as such is suited to capitalism or feudalism. Prove me wrong my property.

Technically Islam also is incompatible with capitalism as it forbids usury.

 

 

Yes, Islam practice free market/trade, so incompatible with Capitalism

 

There is no price control in Islam, traders can set their own price, buyers/consumers have a right to buy or not buying, so it depends on agreements between traders and buyers, the price is what the traders and buyers agree with. That's the original marketing system in Islam.

[Namutree]

 

 

Bump for awesomeness.

 

Christianity has no basis in ties to any economic system. Islam however is explicitly incompatible with socialism due to the requirements of respecting property and as such is suited to capitalism or feudalism. Prove me wrong my property.

Technically Islam also is incompatible with capitalism as it forbids usury.

 

 

Yes, Islam practice free market/trade, so incompatible with Capitalism

 

There is no price control in Islam, traders can set their own price, buyers/consumers have a right to buy or not buying, so it depends on agreements between traders and buyers, the price is what the traders and buyers agree with. That's the original marketing system in Islam.

 

I don't see the conflict between this and capitalism or it's connection to the prohibition of usury.

 

Usury is loaning out money with an interest rate (or a too high interest rate in some circles) is it not? 

[teknoman2]

Bump for awesomeness.

 

Christianity has no basis in ties to any economic system. Islam however is explicitly incompatible with socialism due to the requirements of respecting property and as such is suited to capitalism or feudalism. Prove me wrong my property.

actually the christian religion in its core promotes comunism. as Jesus said "he who has 2 tunics, should give one to he who has none"

and if you think about it 99% of all wars and 80% of all crime is about money, think how different the world would be without it

[Namutree]

 

Bump for awesomeness.

 

Christianity has no basis in ties to any economic system. Islam however is explicitly incompatible with socialism due to the requirements of respecting property and as such is suited to capitalism or feudalism. Prove me wrong my property.

actually the christian religion in its core promotes comunism. as Jesus said "he who has 2 tunics, should give one to he who has none"

 

Being generous /= communism. 

[Qistina]

I don't see the conflict between this and capitalism or it's connection to the prohibition of usury.

 

Usury is loaning out money with an interest rate (or a too high interest rate in some circles) is it not? 

 

 

Capitalism is about monopoly, controlling price and so certain people can monopolize the trade and controlling it. I just backing up why Islam not compatible with Capitalism by adding another point to your point.

 

Islam prohibit taking interests in anything actually, not just on loans.

 

BUT Islam allow service payment....for example, you decide to entrust a bank to keep your monry for you, you pay them for their service, that's fine. Or you make agreement with the bank to buy you a car, the bank buy it for you and demand payment for their service, so you pay the bank the price of the car plus service payment, the car is yours, not the bank. That's okay. That is not usury, the payment is a gift for their service. If you cannot pay in full, you can sell back the car to the bank. That's okay.

 

But today, it is blurred a bit, Islamic banking are not really Islamic nowadays, they have their way to cover up taking interests in many ways...I am not sure about taking loan from the bank, then the bank keep your money and you pay their service with the loan itself, either it is acceptable or not in Islam, or it just want to wash away taking interests by taking it through the back door...

 

 

From what i know, in Islam, if want to take a loan, you must have something as a guarantee, your land for example, if you cannot pay back then you sell your land equal to the remaining debt you have, if you cannot pay at all then you just sell your land to your debtor, and you're not in debt anymore. The other way is a gift or we called "mudarabah", the one who give loan just consider it a gift should you cannot pay back, meaning just forget about it. Surely the greedy bankers today don't want that isn't it? lol

[Namutree]

 

I don't see the conflict between this and capitalism or it's connection to the prohibition of usury.

 

Usury is loaning out money with an interest rate (or a too high interest rate in some circles) is it not? 

 

 

Capitalism is about monopoly, controlling price and so certain people can monopolize the trade and controlling it.

 

Not true at all. Even if a monopoly occurred in a capitalist system, that wouldn't be, "What capitalism is about"; it would merely be a consequence of capitalism.

 

 

Or you make agreement with the bank to buy you a car, the bank buy it for you and demand payment for their service, so you pay the bank the price of the car plus service payment, the car is yours, not the bank. That's okay. That is not usury, the payment is a gift for their service. If you cannot pay in full, you can sell back the car to the bank. That's okay.

Sounds like usury to me. Is this "service payment" mandatory? If so, it's usury.

 

 

 

But today, it is blurred a bit, Islamic banking are not really Islamic nowadays, they have their way to cover up taking interests in many ways...

Cover ups like calling usury a "service payment"?

Edited January 1, 2016 by Namutree

[Meshugger]

I've heard that in Islam, all spiders are insects, but they are still spiders.

 

Happy new year!

[Qistina]

 

Or you make agreement with the bank to buy you a car, the bank buy it for you and demand payment for their service, so you pay the bank the price of the car plus service payment, the car is yours, not the bank. That's okay. That is not usury, the payment is a gift for their service. If you cannot pay in full, you can sell back the car to the bank. That's okay.

Sounds like usury to me. Is this "service payment" mandatory? If so, it's usury.

 

No, that's not usury if you make agreement with bank in solid fix amount

 

Let say, you want to buy a car, but you have no money, so you go to the bank they buy it for you, let say the original price for the car is $20000, their service for buying it for you is $5000, the car is yours, not the bank, you own that car. So you pay the bank $25000. If you cannot pay out of some reason, sell back the car to the bank, the bank buy back from you by deducting your remaining debt. The bank can sell the car as second hand car to anyone.

 

Usury is, you make loan to the bank, the bank give you money, you pay the bank with interests. You use your loaned money to buy a car, you pay it with interest too to the car seller. So now you have two interests to pay. The car is NOT your's....Should you failed to pay back your debt to the bank, the bank will hunting you. The car seller can take away your car also...so both party hunting you....then the bank just take away your car and anything else you have, declare you bankrupt...then you begging on the street, homeless....

 

 

 

 

But today, it is blurred a bit, Islamic banking are not really Islamic nowadays, they have their way to cover up taking interests in many ways...

Cover ups like calling usury a "service payment"?

 

 

Yes, like the example i make, you loan money, then you also pay the service provided (keeping the money safe in their bank and the service of giving loan itself) with your loaned money...by means, example, you loan $10000, you only get $8000, $2000 deducted as service payment, but you still have to pay them back $10000....so they got $4000 from the thin air....

 

This is back door usury

 

Other example is like that Sheikh explained in the video.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Qistina

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

But today, it is blurred a bit, Islamic banking are not really Islamic nowadays, they have their way to cover up taking interests in many ways...

Cover ups like calling usury a "service payment"?

 

 

Yes, like the example i make, you loan money, then you also pay the service provided (keeping the money safe in their bank and the service of giving loan itself) with your loaned money...by means, example, you loan $10000, you only get $8000, $2000 deducted as service payment, but you still have to pay them back $10000....so they got $4000 from the thin air....

 

This is back door usury

 

Other example is like that Sheikh explained in the video.

 

I actually couldn't see that video before. Yet today I could see it. Weird.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Namutree

[Guard Dog]

Well, I have little more to add to the arguments I made six years ago. Capitalism is neither Christian or un-Christian. Christianity is a code of belief that is (supposed to be anyway) a guideline for behavior.  Capitalism is an economic system. You can follow or choose not to follow either as much as you please. They are both systems that can exist only in an environment of personal freedom and individual liberty. As I told our favorite troll favoring socialism/communism while living in a capitalist economy can also be a personal choice. If you don't like the capitalist system just don't participate in it. Don't buy things you don't need. Take the money you don't use and give it to someone else like a charity, or a candidate for office, or me if you're out of ideas. But you can make those choices only  in a free/capitalist society. Turning a capitalist one into a socialist one makes the choice for everyone whether they want it or not. It imposes the will of those in favor on those opposed, usually at gunpoint.

 

As I've said many times over the years how wonderful would the world be if we all just lived our lives in the way that suits us best and left everyone else alone to do the same.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Capitalism is an economic system. You can follow or choose not to follow either as much as you please. They are both systems that can exist only in an environment of personal freedom and individual liberty.

How does an economic system based upon private ownership of property(means of production) require personal freedom? China is operating under an economic system with private property and less state interference than the US, would you say they are doing well with personal freedom and individual liberty?

 

As I told our favorite troll favoring socialism/communism while living in a capitalist economy can also be a personal choice.If you don't like the capitalist system just don't participate in it. Don't buy things you don't need. Take the money you don't use and give it to someone else like a charity, or a candidate for office, or me if you're out of ideas.

You're essentially making the same argument that if you don't like the government, just don't participate in it. Personally I'd be more than happy to not deal with taxes or jury duty, but it shouldn't have to be explained we are under threat of force to do those things.

 

To address your argument directly, what you are describing is some sort of ethical consumerism, not non participation. Non-participation would require not dealing with property(means of production) that were privately owned. With material conditions being what they are, the only ways to accomplish that are either through pulling a Crusoe(which realistically is not an option for many and has a low saturation point of people who can do it) or starvation. While you may view the choice of starvation or servitude as being freedom of the highest order, to others it is an implicit threat no different than the Soviet Union giving them the choice between compliance or death.

 

But you can make those choices only  in a free/capitalist society. Turning a capitalist one into a socialist one makes the choice for everyone whether they want it or not. It imposes the will of those in favor on those opposed, usually at gunpoint.

You're conflating socialism with the welfare state. And we have that situation in the US with taxes already, if you don't think that's at gunpoint(ie threat of force) try not paying them. Every state is built around keeping citizens in line and protecting the interests of the ruling classes, some are just better at creating the illusion of freedom than others.

 

As I've said many times over the years how wonderful would the world be if we all just lived our lives in the way that suits us best and left everyone else alone to do the same.

I agree, but how can one live the life that suits them best if they are bound to a state which tells them to get inline or else? Or bound to an economic system that demands either servitude or starvation?

[Namutree]

Christianity is a code of belief that is (supposed to be anyway) a guideline for behavior.  Capitalism is an economic system. You can follow or choose not to follow either as much as you please. 

Unless God decides to kill you for not obeying him; which if the Bible is to be believed, is something he does. I suppose this might be true though if God as described in the bible isn't real. I hope that's the case as I'd prefer that God doesn't kill me or send me to hell to be tormented for all time simply for exercising my freedom. 

 

 

They are both systems that can exist only in an environment of personal freedom and individual liberty.

Capitalism maybe, but this definitely isn't the case with Christianity. I'd even go so far as to say that Christianity thrives better in an environment devoid of personal freedom. 

 

 

As I told our favorite troll favoring socialism/communism while living in a capitalist economy can also be a personal choice. If you don't like the capitalist system just don't participate in it. Don't buy things you don't need. Take the money you don't use and give it to someone else like a charity, or a candidate for office, or me if you're out of ideas.

I think them forming their own co-ops/communes/whatever is a better idea than seriously expecting them to give away their disposable income. I mean, giving away their money helps them control the means of production how exactly?

[Meshugger]

Now, now, China is as open as the west. Not only you can own property, you can join any political party sanctioned by the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

 

Isn't that wonderful?

[Namutree]

 

Capitalism is an economic system. You can follow or choose not to follow either as much as you please. They are both systems that can exist only in an environment of personal freedom and individual liberty.

How does an economic system based upon private ownership of property(means of production) require personal freedom? China is operating under an economic system with private property and less state interference than the US, would you say they are doing well with personal freedom and individual liberty?

There's more to capitalism than who controls the means of production. The idea of property rights is a vital part of it as well. One that China does not have. Even if you disagree; this is no doubt the context in which GD is using the word "capitalism".

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Now, now, China is as open as the west. Not only you can own property, you can join any political party sanctioned by the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

 

Isn't that wonderful?

Freedom wins over white privilege again.

 

There's more to capitalism than who controls the means of production. The idea of property rights is a vital part of it as well. One that China does not have. Even if you disagree; this is no doubt the context in which GD is using the word "capitalism".

What are property rights if not the legal enforcement of ownership of production? And how does China not enforce this?

[Namutree]

Now, now, China is as open as the west. Not only you can own property, you can join any political party sanctioned by the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

 

Isn't that wonderful?

I had this whole elaborate BS I was gonna go through to get a proper response to this, but it seems it was going to be even more tedious than I initially imagined.

 

Okay, the ending of an the episode, "The midnight sun" of the Twilight Zone has an old lady looking out a window saying, "Oh yes... Wonderful..." With a look of fear and dread on her face (if you don't know the context I'm not explaining it for you).

 

I was going to download that episode from Youtube and cut out that specific part and use it as a response. However, I guess it isn't on Youtube even though old shows are usually on Youtube, so screw it.

 

So just imagine an old lady looking out a window with a look of despair and dread saying, "Oh yes... Wonderful..."

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Now, now, China is as open as the west. Not only you can own property, you can join any political party sanctioned by the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

 

Isn't that wonderful?

 

I had this whole elaborate BS I was gonna go through to get a proper response to this, but it seems it was going to be even more tedious than I initially imagined.

 

Okay, the ending of an the episode, "The midnight sun" of the Twilight Zone has an old lady looking out a window saying, "Oh yes... Wonderful..." With a look of fear and dread on her face (if you don't know the context I'm not explaining it for you).

 

I was going to download that episode from Youtube and cut out that specific part and use it as a response. However, I guess it isn't on Youtube even though old shows are usually on Youtube, so screw it.

 

So just imagine an old lady looking out a window with a look of despair and dread saying, "Oh yes... Wonderful..."

 

That should do it.

[Guard Dog]

 

Capitalism is an economic system. You can follow or choose not to follow either as much as you please. They are both systems that can exist only in an environment of personal freedom and individual liberty.

How does an economic system based upon private ownership of property(means of production) require personal freedom? China is operating under an economic system with private property and less state interference than the US, would you say they are doing well with personal freedom and individual liberty?

 

As I told our favorite troll favoring socialism/communism while living in a capitalist economy can also be a personal choice.If you don't like the capitalist system just don't participate in it. Don't buy things you don't need. Take the money you don't use and give it to someone else like a charity, or a candidate for office, or me if you're out of ideas.

You're essentially making the same argument that if you don't like the government, just don't participate in it. Personally I'd be more than happy to not deal with taxes or jury duty, but it shouldn't have to be explained we are under threat of force to do those things.

 

To address your argument directly, what you are describing is some sort of ethical consumerism, not non participation. Non-participation would require not dealing with property(means of production) that were privately owned. With material conditions being what they are, the only ways to accomplish that are either through pulling a Crusoe(which realistically is not an option for many and has a low saturation point of people who can do it) or starvation. While you may view the choice of starvation or servitude as being freedom of the highest order, to others it is an implicit threat no different than the Soviet Union giving them the choice between compliance or death.

 

But you can make those choices only  in a free/capitalist society. Turning a capitalist one into a socialist one makes the choice for everyone whether they want it or not. It imposes the will of those in favor on those opposed, usually at gunpoint.

You're conflating socialism with the welfare state. And we have that situation in the US with taxes already, if you don't think that's at gunpoint(ie threat of force) try not paying them. Every state is built around keeping citizens in line and protecting the interests of the ruling classes, some are just better at creating the illusion of freedom than others.

 

As I've said many times over the years how wonderful would the world be if we all just lived our lives in the way that suits us best and left everyone else alone to do the same.

I agree, but how can one live the life that suits them best if they are bound to a state which tells them to get inline or else? Or bound to an economic system that demands either servitude or starvation?

 

Great argument and I'd like to answer in more detail but I'm leaving in 5 minutes so I'll have to do it later. I would like to make two quick points though. As a citizen we can be compelled to participate in the process of government. We are going to have to pay taxes, serve jury duty or even be drafted. But we can't be compelled to participate in the economy except by necessity. Yes it is unrealistic to expect the wistful communist living in a capitalist society to give away the money he does not use to cover basic necessities but when it comes down to consumption even the purchase of necessities benefits someone. Whether the groceries you buy were produced on a state run collective farm, a private family farm, or a large private agri-business the money earned buy the purchase will benefit someone other than the consumer. So the only benefit the consumer receives is the variety of choices (because of competition form multiple private businesses) and lower prices (because market forces set the price rather than an arbitrary cost point determined by people who had nothing to do with the production or consumption). So yes the wistful communist can't choose to purchase communally produced products as a rule but when you get down to brass tacks it really doesn't matter to them.  

 

My other point is to Namutree. Christianity is a faith that requires a certain behavior to follow. You can only be Christian by BEING Christian. It is not enough to say you are. In my opinion compelling someone to follow the Christian ethic by outlawing the temptations of "sin" (something the US has a sad history of doing) does not make them Christian. Jesus said "Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hear my voice and open the door I will come in and sup with them and they with me". He didn't say "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your doors in". And it is inappropriate for the government to do that for him as well.

 

Well I wrote more than I meant to but that's my $.02

[Namutree]

 

There's more to capitalism than who controls the means of production. The idea of property rights is a vital part of it as well. One that China does not have. Even if you disagree; this is no doubt the context in which GD is using the word "capitalism".

What are property rights if not the legal enforcement of ownership of production? And how does China not enforce this?

 

The government in China holds that it has the right to both the use and disposal of any and all property within the country. Ownership, true ownership, includes the exclusive right of use and disposal. They have property, but not property rights. Analogy: Let's say I (I'll be the Chinese government) hand out my laptop (this will represent the means of production) to my friend. He's allowed to do anything he wants with it (unless I don't approve; it MUST be used in my interests or I'll reclaim it). He's also allowed to make some money by using it productively which I never do or ever could do, but at anytime I can take it back for any reason. Who would you say is the true proprietor of the laptop? Me or my friend? I think any reasonable person would say me.

 

When the Chinese abandoned their socialist economy due to it's numerous failures and shortcomings, they did not change it to a capitalist one, nor did they ever intend to. They merely harnessed private entrepreneurship which is older than capitalism by thousands of years. I will at least agree with you that China can not be called a "socialist" state anymore though.