• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Eat the Rich

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No, greed has no enemy...no object of scorn.
It does not play out well in those of low morals,
but in the minds of smart ethical people, it
provides the best that society has to offer.

I disagree. The effect of greed is that it views everyone as the enemy. I didn't say it was the same as hatred in that there's an object of scorn. Greed is more rooted in narcissistic, selfish indifference to others, which may even be more harmful than hatred.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Which was a fictional character played by Douglas.

I would say that Douglas was portraying a character who was emblematic of capitalist attitudes.

Another character who reminds me of a typical capitalist was the unnamed character played by Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glenross.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I would say that Douglas was portraying a character who was emblematic of capitalist attitudes.

Another character who reminds me of a typical capitalist was the unnamed character played by Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glenross.
When liberals play capitalists, they'll be a stereotype that
pleases anti-capitalists. Tis best to not form views of
anyone based upon movies & TV shows. After all...
you don't form your views of socialists by watching
The Hanoi Hilton. But Chernobyl might be a good
exception to understand the USSR.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I would say that Douglas was portraying a character who was emblematic of capitalist attitudes.

Another character who reminds me of a typical capitalist was the unnamed character played by Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glenross.

What about John Galt?
Ok, every one hates that character. :oops:
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
When liberals play capitalists, they'll be a stereotype that
pleases anti-capitalists. Tis best to not form views of
anyone based upon movies & TV shows. After all...
you don't form your views of socialists by watching
The Hanoi Hilton. But Chernobyl might be a good
exception to understand the USSR.

Actually I've seen similar personality types much of my life, especially when I used to work in a bourgeois hotel which catered to capitalists. The film industry and those who work in it are also very capitalist. Maybe actors might embellish the part a bit, but the same basic sentiment is rather common. Even liberals have shown scorn and disdain towards the lower classes and others they see as "less successful" than they are. You've seen how they deride "hillbillies," right? Same basic attitude.

As for how socialists are portrayed, it depends. I never did see The Hanoi Hilton, so I might check it out. I was going to watch Chernobyl but never got a round tuit.

Socialism is perhaps best portrayed by the United Federation of Planets. Earth is a paradise.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Socialism has also exhibited environmental destruction.
The Soviets were particularly notorious with their
cavalier attitude towards nuclear power.
Absolutely. Likewise, capitalism has a pretty patchy record when you look at the economic state of many places where the power of private wealth dominates.

That said, if I am being honest I should also say that when I think of the best we can do, right now with where we are in our development, it would look more like America in terms of economic freedom than the Soviet Union.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Absolutely. Likewise, capitalism has a pretty patchy record when you look at the economic state of many places where the power of private wealth dominates.

That said, if I am being honest I should also say that when I think of the best we can do, right now with where we are in our development, it would look more like America in terms of economic freedom than the Soviet Union.
So the issue of environmentalism isn't solved with adopting
this or that economic system. It's the people steering
government to achieve such goals.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Absolutely. Likewise, capitalism has a pretty patchy record when you look at the economic state of many places where the power of private wealth dominates.

That said, if I am being honest I should also say that when I think of the best we can do, right now with where we are in our development, it would look more like America in terms of economic freedom than the Soviet Union.

My opinion is that if we're going to compare capitalist vs. socialist states, then at least one should make a more complete comparison than simply comparing America to the USSR.

List of socialist states - Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia, these states are considered socialist:

China
Cuba
Laos
Vietnam
Algeria
Portugal
Bangladesh
Eritrea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
North Korea
India
Nepal
Nicaragua
Western Sahara
Sri Lanka
Tanzania

I'm not sure about Portugal or India, as I wouldn't have expected them to be on the list.

However, that would mean that all remaining states must, by default, be considered capitalist.

Now, we can look at the 25 poorest countries in the world, and find that only two socialist countries (listed above) are on that list:

poorest25countries.JPG



Mapped: The 25 Poorest Countries in the World | Business Insider Africa

The bottom 10 poorest countries on the planet are ALL capitalist countries, and it's pretty clear that they are far worse off than socialist countries such as Cuba or North Korea.

It's also interesting that 20 years of US occupation didn't help Afghanistan get out of the bottom 10.

All in all, I would say this presents a more balanced picture, rather than the patriotic chest-thumping Americans who crow "Ha ha! We have it better than North Korea!"
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
They're not a socialist organization....more like the UN.
BTW, Section 21 is the authoritarian arm of the UFP.

You mean Section 31? Wasn't that created before the Federation and existed in the shadow of Star Fleet Command?

But things like that exist in every government, just like every government has a police and fire department.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
My opinion is that if we're going to compare capitalist vs. socialist states, then at least one should make a more complete comparison than simply comparing America to the USSR.

List of socialist states - Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia, these states are considered socialist:

China
Cuba
Laos
Vietnam
Algeria
Portugal
Bangladesh
Eritrea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
North Korea
India
Nepal
Nicaragua
Western Sahara
Sri Lanka
Tanzania

I'm not sure about Portugal or India, as I wouldn't have expected them to be on the list.

However, that would mean that all remaining states must, by default, be considered capitalist.

Now, we can look at the 25 poorest countries in the world, and find that only two socialist countries (listed above) are on that list:

View attachment 55851


Mapped: The 25 Poorest Countries in the World | Business Insider Africa

The bottom 10 poorest countries on the planet are ALL capitalist countries, and it's pretty clear that they are far worse off than socialist countries such as Cuba or North Korea.

It's also interesting that 20 years of US occupation didn't help Afghanistan get out of the bottom 10.

All in all, I would say this presents a more balanced picture, rather than the patriotic chest-thumping Americans who crow "Ha ha! We have it better than North Korea!"
Ok. That's a fair point.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Which is pretty impossible in a system where money talks louder than people.
Blaming money is easier than blaming voters who show
in the primaries & elections that they've little interest in
ending wars & protecting the environment. They reject
the "fringe" candidates with values they claim to support,
& instead go with the status quo.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
That said, if I am being honest I should also say that when I think of the best we can do, right now with where we are in our development, it would look more like America in terms of economic freedom than the Soviet Union.
Where would you prefer to live if you were homeless and destitute?
 
Top