-
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!
Regarding Debates About Capitalism and Economics
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
Another reason might be a general feeling that "communism" really is no threat. There's little danger of riling up the workers or stirring up the peasants, no matter how incendiary or inflammatory a communist's rhetoric might get.
Fascism, along with other incarnations of malignant nationalism, still tends to rile people up. It's not necessarily because of Nazis, but because of our own history in America (and other Western powers which also have a checkered past in this particular area). Racism and imperialism are also relatives of nationalism and fascism, and because of this history which occurred on our own soil, people might be more sensitive and vulnerable to it than the ideas expressed by communists.
In contrast, communism never happened in America, so it's not something that people worry about so much.
Capitalism is flawed, but not as flawed as the alternatives.
My sense is that it's running amok now because it needs monitoring and tweaking and tuning that it's not getting. I think that any economic system we might devise will need similar such tuning.
A nationalist sub-forum has been discussed several times in the past but didn't get much success for various reasons. You can take it up with the staff in site feedback if it bothers you.
Virtually all Communists on RF have been of a libertarian or anarchist persuasion and so have not immediately threatened the forums culture of tolerance of religious and political views. There has been a pocket of support for libertarian communism since its early days because RF does lean more towards the centre-left if you look at the political compass results. There simply hasn't been demand for an explicitly fascist or neo-nazi sub-forum because authoritarianism is an anomolie.
Open Advocacy of Violent Revolution, State Terrorism and extermination of opponents based on political and religious beliefs would be almost impossible to sustain within RF's rules. There is however nothing in the forum rules expressly forbidding people from expressing Nazi, Fascist, Stalinist or Maoist views. It would generally favour much more intellectual approaches that cover a variety of areas where the ideology is applied to different contexts (e.g. sex, science, religion, philosophy, art, etc) rather than your average nazi/stalinist.
At some level it is possible for Stalinist and Nazi opinions to be accepted within the forum rules (as long as they stay away from violence basically) but the way that both subordinate individual rights to the state, including a person's religious beliefs, would make any such member extremely unpopular very quickly unless they are very careful. Most Nazis and Communists keep to themselves because of the social support it offers and how difficult it is to express those view publicly as it is. Forums tend to have a set of taboos and limits to legitimate conversation even when they aren't in the rules and Nazi/Stalinist politics would be taboo on RF.
If you want to advocate Nazi or Fascist views, you're welcome to try but you'd need an expert level of "diplomacy" to pull it off when your debating people who you would kill in death camps for being gay, Jewish, etc. That's not taking in to account that even Nazis are human and still have to deal with a conscience of sorts, (even if its one we'd struggle to recognise or relate to.) Holocaust denial serves to try and make Nazism respectable, but also is a form of psychological self-defence because it is not "normal" to want to kill millions of people even if you have an ideology that can be used to justify it. It would drive you insane if you're not careful.
Father
Devourer of Truth
I simply meant fascist which is not the same as Nazism. Nazism is a German exclusive Ideology. or those of German descent. Fascism is an economic and political system that can apply to anyone, regardless of race.
communism also has different sects and such yet it almost always fails and kills its own people.
communism fails absolutely when Fascism has barely been tried and has only failed due to the power hunger its users had. as a economic system it pulled Germany out of famine and poor economic factors.
which is why i think a section of it would be nice to truly discuse it puting any ideology aside. simply as a system, like one would with capitalism.
Who controls the controlling body?
I wouldn't mind a nationalist only sub-forum for people to discuss ideas but its the staff's decision ultimately. I grasp that those on the right will want somewhere where they can discuss things without knee-jerk reactions, hysteria and constant misrepresentation of the ideology to suit a narrative of moral outrage. It turns every discussion in to a war of attrition against standardised responses and makes it harder to know what to think about the whole thing. I should mention I'm an ex-communist so I'm a bit of a veteran of other people's ******* so I do "get it".
If you ever need a chat, feel free to PM me. Its much easier to talk about this kind of stuff privately.
When you are starting out on the road to finding alternatives to capitalism, it does make a great deal of sense. It is an inescapable part of "wanting" the alternative as well because there has to be "something" that makes you want to look. You're right that the capitalist system thrives on people feeling powerless and useless before market forces and there is a possibility that the wave of anxiety and depression in the west may have something to do with Capitalism.
However, when you get to the point of practical implementation of alternatives, it has to be more than simply making us feel good about ourselves. Its not a sound motivation for changing the world if you really want to exercise that kind of power because it hides so many vulnerabilities that you will eventually abuse it.
In many ways you're right because Socialism, Liberalism and Nationalism came to a head in the French Revolution as an Anti-Monarchist and Republican experiment and are all part of the enlightenment ideas. The fact they have the same origin doesn't mean they share the same destination or if that destination is desirable.
Marxism can be dated back to the French Materialists who were outliers of the Enlightenment which was still a product of Christianity. The tendency to treat (Marxist) Communism as having a family resemblance to Christian ideas of universal love or brotherhood and Liberal humanism doesn't hold true.
Marxism share's more in common with Social Darwinism as a rejection of many ideas underpinning Liberal and Christian civilisation and is much more nihilistic as a "might is right" ideology. Its not the same as Nazism but there is some commonality between them in believing that a "scientific" understanding of society means they can sweep away the morals of the "old society".
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I'd hate to lose capitalism, because it produces so much wealth. but perhaps there should be other forms of economy that exist alongside capitalism.
perhaps something called a provisional economy, where the poor, and needy get a citizens income from a printed source, a way to introduce more money into the economy without taking from those who have success in it. it would have to be strict provision on necessity alone.
I mean who controls the money supply, those who save, and those who own the distribution of wealth, are going to hoard, and squelch opportunity for the poor to ever get ahead. the wealthy own the economy and there's no place of a fair entry into the economy. so they are going to engineer society with a tight fist.
perhaps something called a provisional economy, where the poor, and needy get a citizens income from a printed source, a way to introduce more money into the economy without taking from those who have success in it. it would have to be strict provision on necessity alone.
I mean who controls the money supply, those who save, and those who own the distribution of wealth, are going to hoard, and squelch opportunity for the poor to ever get ahead. the wealthy own the economy and there's no place of a fair entry into the economy. so they are going to engineer society with a tight fist.
The people.
How?
I think another option might be capitalism itself will develop and continue to the next evolutionary level, or it may hit a dead end and crash upon itself. As long as people can remain ideologically flexible and reasonable, then we can get through this capitalist phase and move on the next stage in humanity's social and political development.
The bigger problem today, more than capitalism itself, is ideological inflexibility, which seems to me more prevalent on the capitalist side of the debate. They're just too darn stubborn. The whole argument and gridlock over healthcare is a perfect example of unreasonable capitalist intransigence. Even though socialized medicine works well in other countries at lower costs and higher quality than in the US, these capitalists keep bellowing on and on and on about how "evil" socialism is. They're religious zealots, not thinkers, and that's the biggest flaw with capitalism at the moment.
Marxism might also need some updating as well, since the world has changed considerably since Marx's time.
The usual ways: Elections, popular mandates, referendums, a transparent government accountable to the people.
If it doesn't work inside a country, how is it supposed to work for the entire globe?
I'm not saying that there won't be problems, but that doesn't mean they would be insurmountable. Ultimately, the survival of the planet and the human race is at stake, so I think it's worthwhile to at least make the effort.
But I agree that there are too many problems and barriers, along with too much opposition to such an idea that it probably won't ever come to pass.
However, if we can't make a global society work, then the West (as it continues to be further strained by debts and more dependent upon foreign resources) will face a choice where they may have to resort to some of their older methods to maintain their standard of living. That's where the right-wing gets a lot of its support, by those who favor policies which pursue and defend our "national interests."
Those are really the only two choices we have, as a world: We either share with each other, or we take from each other by force. If we take the latter option, then it could lead to the end of us all.
Adrian Dore
New Member
There can be no doubt that our systems are not serving us well.
The indicators are all around us. However, the mistake you make is to blame Capitalism, when in reality, Capitalism has little or nothing to do with our problems. We call ourselves Capitalists because we support free enterprise and acknowledge the importance for business to create a profit to survive and grow. Beyond this we share nothing else with Capitalism. It’s certainly not unreasonable for business to generate a profit to survive and grow, and free enterprise holds merit for the majority of us. So how are these fundamental principles now so destructive and working against the majority of us? They aren’t, because we aren’t Capitalists - we are Profiteers. The reality is business is focused on short-term profit creation for the exclusive benefit of shareholders, at the exclusion of all others. This profit obsession, for the benefit of a few, lies at the heart of our problems. Capitalism does not recommend the interests of Capital (Shareholders) be placed above all other constituents (or Stakeholders) of business. It’s objective is the longevity and spread of Capitalism, which can only be achieved through a balanced approach, which acknowledges the needs of all constituents, or stakeholders. So what then is driving our profit obsession? It is our inadequate and inappropriate business measures. Consider the following:-
1. We use financial measures as a business measure, yet financial considerations effect less than 20% of the value creation potential of business. Therefore, it should be obvious to all - financial measures as a business measure are entirely inadequate and inappropriate.
2. However, despite this, we persist in using it as a business measure because, it’s our only comparable measure, and comparison is essential to our economy.
3. This leads to the biggest problem of all - it forces businesses into compromising non-financial measures to ensure they achieve strong financials.
4. This creates an imbalanced system where global resources are used for the benefit of a few, at the expense of the many. By definition, this makes it a profiteering system, as our measurement standard unfairly favours shareholder interests over all others in the generation of profit. We are not capitalists but profiteers.
5. This profiteering approach of serving only shareholder interests has made it the single biggest root cause of our most serious social, environmental, economic and business problems.
6. It’s an approach which serves nobodies long-term interests. This is because an imbalanced system cannot perform effectively or efficiently.
7. As measures dictate outcomes, we need a new measurement standard which will ensure a balanced approach in serving the needs of all constituents, thereby placing business on the path of normality. Little or no change comes about through philosophical ideas alone - we need new measures.
The indicators are all around us. However, the mistake you make is to blame Capitalism, when in reality, Capitalism has little or nothing to do with our problems. We call ourselves Capitalists because we support free enterprise and acknowledge the importance for business to create a profit to survive and grow. Beyond this we share nothing else with Capitalism. It’s certainly not unreasonable for business to generate a profit to survive and grow, and free enterprise holds merit for the majority of us. So how are these fundamental principles now so destructive and working against the majority of us? They aren’t, because we aren’t Capitalists - we are Profiteers. The reality is business is focused on short-term profit creation for the exclusive benefit of shareholders, at the exclusion of all others. This profit obsession, for the benefit of a few, lies at the heart of our problems. Capitalism does not recommend the interests of Capital (Shareholders) be placed above all other constituents (or Stakeholders) of business. It’s objective is the longevity and spread of Capitalism, which can only be achieved through a balanced approach, which acknowledges the needs of all constituents, or stakeholders. So what then is driving our profit obsession? It is our inadequate and inappropriate business measures. Consider the following:-
1. We use financial measures as a business measure, yet financial considerations effect less than 20% of the value creation potential of business. Therefore, it should be obvious to all - financial measures as a business measure are entirely inadequate and inappropriate.
2. However, despite this, we persist in using it as a business measure because, it’s our only comparable measure, and comparison is essential to our economy.
3. This leads to the biggest problem of all - it forces businesses into compromising non-financial measures to ensure they achieve strong financials.
4. This creates an imbalanced system where global resources are used for the benefit of a few, at the expense of the many. By definition, this makes it a profiteering system, as our measurement standard unfairly favours shareholder interests over all others in the generation of profit. We are not capitalists but profiteers.
5. This profiteering approach of serving only shareholder interests has made it the single biggest root cause of our most serious social, environmental, economic and business problems.
6. It’s an approach which serves nobodies long-term interests. This is because an imbalanced system cannot perform effectively or efficiently.
7. As measures dictate outcomes, we need a new measurement standard which will ensure a balanced approach in serving the needs of all constituents, thereby placing business on the path of normality. Little or no change comes about through philosophical ideas alone - we need new measures.
Adrian Dore
New Member
It is the interests of the rich, powerful and influential that you serve when you stoke the fire of anti-capitalism. This is because capitalism is the smoke screen hiding the real cause of our problems - our inadequate and inappropriate business measurement standard, which these people have vested interests in maintaining.
We’ve heard a lot of anti-capitalism rhetoric but nothing said against the real cause, despite it being the most obvious reason. This just shows you the amazing cover-up they have established and maintain.
As capitalism is an ideology, it’s difficult to be specific and link problems directly with it in a causal relationship. This vagueness and our misconceptions is what they want, as implementing change based on vagueness and misunderstandings are near impossible. They can’t cover-up the impact their activities have on all facets of life, but they can cover-up and hide the cause, which buys them time, and places change well beyond their lifespan - and that’s all that matters to them.
However, changing our measurement standard will have an immediate and direct impact on outcomes. What’s more, we can link our inadequate and inappropriate measurement standards directly to problems in a causal relationship and show justification for change. They don’t want you to do that.
We can all do something positive to turn the situation around by calling for a new business measurement standard, just as you have been calling for changes to capitalism. I have written, and continue to write, articles on this matter. You may read these articles at www.newmeasurementstandard.org
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
We’ve heard a lot of anti-capitalism rhetoric but nothing said against the real cause, despite it being the most obvious reason. This just shows you the amazing cover-up they have established and maintain.
As capitalism is an ideology, it’s difficult to be specific and link problems directly with it in a causal relationship. This vagueness and our misconceptions is what they want, as implementing change based on vagueness and misunderstandings are near impossible. They can’t cover-up the impact their activities have on all facets of life, but they can cover-up and hide the cause, which buys them time, and places change well beyond their lifespan - and that’s all that matters to them.
However, changing our measurement standard will have an immediate and direct impact on outcomes. What’s more, we can link our inadequate and inappropriate measurement standards directly to problems in a causal relationship and show justification for change. They don’t want you to do that.
We can all do something positive to turn the situation around by calling for a new business measurement standard, just as you have been calling for changes to capitalism. I have written, and continue to write, articles on this matter. You may read these articles at www.newmeasurementstandard.org
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Last edited:
It's an interesting proposition. I glanced at your site, and I'll look at it some more, but I think that may cut to the core of what the problem may be. The standard of measurement used in capitalist economies is money (in terms of wages, salaries, prices, etc.), but that's where things become so vague and nebulous.
Capitalists often argue from the point of view that this is somehow the result of "natural law," that prices and wages are set by some "unseen hand" and that it all happens automatically, without any human intervention or thought. Certain misguided individuals (a few of them here in this forum, although I won't name any names) seem to believe "well, that's just how markets work" and leave it a that. I don't accept that. Human beings are making the decisions, not God or Nature.
Do you think that economics is not a stochastic process?
I see it as analogous to statistical mechanics, with humans as the
atoms, resulting in the emergent property of market economics.
Governments & larger players do affect the parameters though.
I see economics as a branch of political science. It's a social science, just like philosophy or history. "Economics" used to be known as "political economy."