Capitalism is un-Christian.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

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 point was that we are compelled to participate in the economy by necessity. To survive, the wistful communist must seek employment from a firm in order to survive because the wistful communist needs the compensation he receives in order to buy basic necessities. I suppose one could argue that a co-op structure would be a method to avoid this predicament, but other than a few grocery markets in urban cities I am struggling to think of any and as such opting out of the capitalist economy is practically impossible.

 

As to variety of choices, I think we're arguing more for a method of distribution than a method of production. I don't believe that the idea of a market is necessarily capitalist, or even incompatible with socialism if using the definition of non-private control over production. The use of the central planning and command economy by certain states was more due to ideology, in this case being that the state can take the place of capitalism from Marxist theory in order to rapidly industrialize effectively feudal economies, than practicality.

 

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

Happens to me all the time.

 

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.

Admittedly I'm not an expert on PRC law, but I thought that Property Law of the People's Republic of China established private ownership of property and as such property rights rather than property leasing.

 

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.

To turn a phrase, I think that China is operating under "Capitalism with Chinese characteristics". In practice this is an authoritarian state that lets firms operate as they please as long as they "play ball" as it were.

[Namutree]

 

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 point was that we are compelled to participate in the economy by necessity. To survive, the wistful communist must seek employment from a firm in order to survive because the wistful communist needs the compensation he receives in order to buy basic necessities. I suppose one could argue that a co-op structure would be a method to avoid this predicament, but other than a few grocery markets in urban cities I am struggling to think of any and as such opting out of the capitalist economy is practically impossible.

 

There are some communes in the US. They're just very small and lacking in most of the capitalist luxuries we are used to. There are also a decent number of farming co-ops up here in Michigan. 

 

 

As to variety of choices, I think we're arguing more for a method of distribution than a method of production. I don't believe that the idea of a market is necessarily capitalist, or even incompatible with socialism if using the definition of non-private control over production. The use of the central planning and command economy by certain states was more due to ideology, in this case being that the state can take the place of capitalism from Marxist theory in order to rapidly industrialize effectively feudal economies, than practicality.

You'd be right about that. Markets are older than capitalism, and there are pro-market varieties of socialism.Market socialism comes to mind.

[FlintlockJazz]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, Your God!!!

 

Me.

 

Now get off your knees and get worshipping me you slags!

[Chilloutman]

Eh, new year and we are in same ideology swamp again? Finally understand that all these are same group, give me one difference between ideology and religion

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Eh, new year and we are in same ideology swamp again? Finally understand that all these are same group, give me one difference between ideology and religion

Ideology doesn't require spirituality.

[Chilloutman]

 

Eh, new year and we are in same ideology swamp again? Finally understand that all these are same group, give me one difference between ideology and religion

Ideology doesn't require spirituality.

 

define spirituality please because it seems you have very limited view on that term

Edited January 4, 2016 by Chilloutman

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Eh, new year and we are in same ideology swamp again? Finally understand that all these are same group, give me one difference between ideology and religion

Ideology doesn't require spirituality.

define spirituality please because it seems you have very limited view on that term

the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters : the quality or state of being spiritual

[Guard Dog]

I remember posting once that atheism is a religion with examples of how it meets every definition including faith in an unknown and unverifiable fact (the absence of God is no more provable than the existence of God). I'd look it up and link to it but it was a long time and someone might bump THAT old argument too.

[Chilloutman]

I remember posting once that atheism is a religion with examples of how it meets every definition including faith in an unknown and unverifiable fact (the absence of God is no more provable than the existence of God). I'd look it up and link to it but it was a long time and someone might bump THAT old argument too.

 

 i kind of agree, thats why i dont see difference between religion and ideology

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

Eh, new year and we are in same ideology swamp again? Finally understand that all these are same group, give me one difference between ideology and religion

Ideology doesn't require spirituality.

define spirituality please because it seems you have very limited view on that term

the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters : the quality or state of being spiritual

 

 

 just change wording from relgion to ideology and that sentence have completely same sense

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

 

Spirituality may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity,^{[1][note 1]}personal growth, or blissful experience.^[3]

Traditionally, spirituality refers to a process of re-formation of the personality^[4] but there is no precise definition of spirituality

Edited January 4, 2016 by Chilloutman

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I remember posting once that atheism is a religion with examples of how it meets every definition including faith in an unknown and unverifiable fact (the absence of God is no more provable than the existence of God). I'd look it up and link to it but it was a long time and someone might bump THAT old argument too.

Atheism is more ideology, the ideology that spirituality is ultimately meaningless. Otherwise ideology and religion are pretty much the same in that they encourage people to support unreasonable stuff and blind to the obvious.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

Eh, new year and we are in same ideology swamp again? Finally understand that all these are same group, give me one difference between ideology and religion

 

Ideology doesn't require spirituality.

define spirituality please because it seems you have very limited view on that term

the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters : the quality or state of being spiritual

 

 just change wording from relgion to ideology and that sentence have completely same sense

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

 

Spirituality may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity,^{[1][note 1]}personal growth, or blissful experience.^[3]

Traditionally, spirituality refers to a process of re-formation of the personality^[4] but there is no precise definition of spirituality

My point was that religion uses a spiritual basis while ideology uses a logical basis, in that ideology is typically formed around a logical conclusion while religion is based around mystical events.

[Zoraptor]

 

I remember posting once that atheism is a religion with examples of how it meets every definition including faith in an unknown and unverifiable fact (the absence of God is no more provable than the existence of God). I'd look it up and link to it but it was a long time and someone might bump THAT old argument too.

Atheism is more ideology, the ideology that spirituality is ultimately meaningless. Otherwise ideology and religion are pretty much the same in that they encourage people to support unreasonable stuff and blind to the obvious.

 

 

I don't think atheism holds spirituality to be ultimately meaningless, though many atheists probably do it isn't an inherent tenet of atheism- an active unbelief in god is all that is required for that. Lack of spirituality or the belief that it is meaningless probably fits nihilism best, nihilists are by their nature almost always atheist but not the reverse.

[Maedhros]

I know plenty of atheists who are very spiritual. Buddhism, anyone?

 

I dislike how people try to attribute too much meaning to the term atheism - it simply means lack of/absence of belief in gods. It doesn't mean that you 100% rule it out, it just means that you don't have the belief that they exist.

 

It's not an ideology, it's not a religion, any more than "not believing mutant ninja turtles exist" is.

[Hurlshort]

I know plenty of atheists who are very spiritual. Buddhism, anyone?

 

I dislike how people try to attribute too much meaning to the term atheism - it simply means lack of/absence of belief in gods. It doesn't mean that you 100% rule it out, it just means that you don't have the belief that they exist.

 

It's not an ideology, it's not a religion, any more than "not believing mutant ninja turtles exist" is.

 

Wouldn't that be agnosticism, not atheism?

[FlintlockJazz]

 

I know plenty of atheists who are very spiritual. Buddhism, anyone?

 

I dislike how people try to attribute too much meaning to the term atheism - it simply means lack of/absence of belief in gods. It doesn't mean that you 100% rule it out, it just means that you don't have the belief that they exist.

 

It's not an ideology, it's not a religion, any more than "not believing mutant ninja turtles exist" is.

 

Wouldn't that be agnosticism, not atheism?

 

Yep, I hate it how some athiests try to coerce agnostics into believing they are athiests, as an agnostic I am very fervent in my beliefs, even if it is "We don't know either way."

[ShadySands]

There are shades to it such as a/gnostic a/theism

[Barothmuk]

Yep, I hate it how some athiests try to coerce agnostics into believing they are athiests, as an agnostic I am very fervent in my beliefs, even if it is "We don't know either way."

If a religion demands you do an action and you do not do this action due to a lack of evidence of needing to do it this would qualify as "disbelief".

 

I too entertain there's a small possibility of there being a god or gods but seeing there is no evidence for this I act on the assumption there isn't. Call it what you will but I find the "I'm not an atheist I'm agnostic" to be less about philosophical accuracy and more about tip-toeing around people's religious beliefs and not wanting to look like one of those nu-atheist types.

[Guard Dog]

If you separate the logic from the passions the religion inspires (both in belief or disbelief) agnostics are the only ones with a reasonable position. I can no more prove to an atheist God's existence than they can disprove. Which is more arrogant I wonder? To assert that something that cannot be measured or interacted with exists or that something outside our senses and experience Is impossible. The latter I think. By that logic quarks and other sub-atomic particles don't exist either. To state that anything is impossible assumes we know everything there is to know on the subject. Now that is arrogance.

 

At the end of the day faith is a very personal thing. The means by which you come by it and the importance it holds to you are things only you can know or understand. I am always amazed that atheists are typically more aggressive and condescending when they are discussing their beliefs with a religious person. Many of them find it intolerable that someone might have a different opinion on what they have decided as being so. Take my exchanges with Nightshape earlier in this thread. He gets really angry at the notions that someone might believe in what he says is impossible.

[Hurlshort]

That has always been fairly close to the way I see it.  Saying 'there is no God' seems as close minded as saying 'my God is the only real one.'  Saying there is no evidence to support the existence of God, so I choose not to spend time on it' is perfectly reasonable, but far from what I see most atheists going on about. 

[Guard Dog]

https://youtu.be/KYAhlz7rnPU

[HoonDing]

"Capitalism is un-Christian"

 

well, after Emperor Constantine the Great it was

[BruceVC]

That has always been fairly close to the way I see it.  Saying 'there is no God' seems as close minded as saying 'my God is the only real one.'  Saying there is no evidence to support the existence of God, so I choose not to spend time on it' is perfectly reasonable, but far from what I see most atheists going on about. 

 

 

 

Yep, I hate it how some athiests try to coerce agnostics into believing they are athiests, as an agnostic I am very fervent in my beliefs, even if it is "We don't know either way."

If a religion demands you do an action and you do not do this action due to a lack of evidence of needing to do it this would qualify as "disbelief".

 

I too entertain there's a small possibility of there being a god or gods but seeing there is no evidence for this I act on the assumption there isn't. Call it what you will but I find the "I'm not an atheist I'm agnostic" to be less about philosophical accuracy and more about tip-toeing around people's religious beliefs and not wanting to look like one of those nu-atheist types.

 

To be honest thats why I'm not religious, these is just no proof. In the old Testament divine interventions and acts of wrath were not uncommon.

 

So I would just need something tangible to believe ...I don't think thats unreasonable ? 

[Qistina]

I think most religions are socialists, or at least started with socialism movement, and so religious economy is socialistic economy

 

Look at Abrahamic religion for example, it is all about movement of the people...prophet Moses (pbuh) moving his people against Pharaoh, prophet Jesus (pbuh) move his followers against authority at his time, and prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also do the same and in larger scale...Abrahamic religion is socialistic originally...it is all about moving the people out from the existing corrupt system

 

Economy at prophet Muhammad (pbuh) time monopolized by the Jews, and the Jews are corrupted, they are into capitalism...everybody know about Jews and thier love of gold....

 

Buddha also against the authority, in his own way, he provide a way out from the existing system that is corrupt

[BruceVC]

I think most religions are socialists, or at least started with socialism movement, and so religious economy is socialistic economy

 

Look at Abrahamic religion for example, it is all about movement of the people...prophet Moses (pbuh) moving his people against Pharaoh, prophet Jesus (pbuh) move his followers against authority at his time, and prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also do the same and in larger scale...Abrahamic religion is socialistic originally...it is all about moving the people out from the existing corrupt system

 

Economy at prophet Muhammad (pbuh) time monopolized by the Jews, and the Jews are corrupted, they are into capitalism...everybody know about Jews and thier love of gold....

 

Buddha also against the authority, in his own way, he provide a way out from the existing system that is corrupt

No the Jews aren't corrupted, they are just very good at survival and they generally very good business men ...especially in finance 

 

You could learn a lot from them?