Dante's views and/on Anti-capitalism

[Phang]

i would differentiate between 'capitalism' and 'trade' pretty ****ing strongly man

[Dante Hicks]

I don't get the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" systems. Were "unnatural" systems created by alien intervention or something?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't get the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" systems. Were "unnatural" systems created by alien intervention or something?

Unnatural in the sense that they deny human nature (e.g., religion is an unnatural system).

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What about them? Are you claiming that Microsoft's dominance has killed off innovation in the browser industry? Or that Microsoft somehow has a 'monopoly' on web-browsers despite numerous companies giving away superior products for free? Or are you just complaning that Opera Softare doesnt make as money as you feel it should (firefox couldnt make money anyway due to the business model)?

ok, there probably isnt much money in that paticular market, but my point is still valid: microsoft did get almost a monopoly in that sector, not by making a good product, but by using its marketshare in desktop-os's

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Unnatural in the sense that they deny human nature (e.g., religion is an unnatural system).

Is it?

This is a topic for a whole other thread, but I think religion is extremely natural. It is human nature to make up takes and stories to explain what we cannot otherwise understand. Just as sandstorms were caused by 'dust devils' and illness was caused by first 'evil spirits', then by 'bad air', so too is religion just a wat to explain things we cannot grasp on a larger scale.

Organised religion on the other hand, perhaps is unnatural...

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Nadval

To sum up - similarly to criminals, despite the good things that have come of capitalism, it's the immoral nature which makes it undesirable in our society.

Similarly to criminals - socialists steal.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Unnatural in the sense that they deny human nature (e.g., religion is an unnatural system).

I dont think there's any such thing as 'human nature' in the sense the term is normally used, but a system could be classified as (un)natural to the degree which it respects the basic conditions required for human survival and flourishing. Keeping a plant in a dark room is unnatural not because light is somehow more natural than darkness, but simply because plants need light in order to survive.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Phang

i would differentiate between 'capitalism' and 'trade' pretty ****ing strongly man

So would most people. Fact is, I didn't mention 'trade'.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Unnatural in the sense that they deny human nature (e.g., religion is an unnatural system).

Religion denies human nature? Heh, even the atheists would disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Vermillion

This is a topic for a whole other thread, but I think religion is extremely natural. It is human nature to make up takes and stories to explain what we cannot otherwise understand. Just as sandstorms were caused by 'dust devils' and illness was caused by first 'evil spirits', then by 'bad air', so too is religion just a wat to explain things we cannot grasp on a larger scale.

Organised religion on the other hand, perhaps is unnatural...

A larger scale? I assume you mean 'according to that which is humanly possible; that which is provable'. In any case, how is that a 'larger scale' than religious belief?

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Firstly, what they destroyed had little to do with Socialism, and had everything to do with democracy. They restroyed the fledgling democratic state which the first revolution was struggling to establish. Their elimination of the regional and industry councils was about power, not forms of government. Folloing these purges, they sen set up the exact same councils and Soviets again, just this time making sure they were ieologically sound, and willing to work with the central authority.

We can sit here and argue about what socialism is, but there are some ideas that are at the core of it, like workers' control over production, elimination of wage labour etc. Did any soviet countries have any of those things? The answer's no - they were barely even thought about. There were socialist initiatives in the beginning of the revolution but it was all completely crushed when the Bolsheviks came to power.

While socialism denys it, again coming back full circle to my original point, socialism does not work based on that one fatal flaw.

Just because there is a sad fact about humans and the way we live/think doesn't mean that it can't be changed. For instance, democracy was extemely idealistic in it's early stages - the elite classes thought the idea that the general population could be trusted with a vote was proposterous. Now ok, you may argue that democracy hasn't 'worked' (depending on what meaning of the word you're using), but it's certainly got a lot further than most people would have predicted in times when monarchs were deemed as superior beings and that was considered a fact of life.

You give humanity too much credit. People want to better themselves and their situation. If they can do so through development and ingenuity, then they will. If development and ingenuity do not offer any way for personal enrichment, then the vast majority of humanity will not bother.

The point I was making was that given the oppertunity, most humans would choose self-interest over morals and justice. If a political or legal system has to be in place to ensure justice and equality then so be it (thus criminal law).

Capitalism is not immoral, it is just a system. In the same way Gravity is not 'immoral' no matter how immoral it may appear when you arre in the process of falling.

The difference being gravity is indiscriminate and a law of science. It's like comparing laws of accelleration and corruption in the judiciary.

Capitalism is subject to abuse and corruption of course, any system is. As such it needs to be legeslated and controlled. It is also ONLY an economic system, nothing else: that is CRITICAL to remember. Socialism on the other hand is an economic model AND a moral model. Its morals are to be commended, I agre with them, and consider myself quite leftist in that regard. However as an economic system, is just plain sucks.

Capitalism not only provides the oppertunity for exploitation but actualy advocates it. The idea of capitalism is that the businessman earns money at the expense of the workers who have set wage labour. It alienates the workers and their skills, objectifying them by enabling their labour to be bought and sold. The idea is to widen the gap between rich and poor, and it works very effectively (any 10 yr old could make that observation looking at the current world situation).

If you haven't read any of Marx's work then I strongly suggest you do, it explains point by point why Capitalism is internally flawed (as Toccata & Fugue previously stated) and how it exploits the masses in the favour of a small minority known as the bourgoise, or elite class.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Is it?

This is a topic for a whole other thread, but I think religion is extremely natural. It is human nature to make up takes and stories to explain what we cannot otherwise understand. Just as sandstorms were caused by 'dust devils' and illness was caused by first 'evil spirits', then by 'bad air', so too is religion just a wat to explain things we cannot grasp on a larger scale.

It's certainly natural/human nature to understand the world, and simple explanations give way to more accurate ones. However, what distinguishes more complex religions from animism is that religion becomes progressively more proscriptive (concerned with telling people what they should and shouldn't do) and less descriptive (explaining the world we live in). If religion had remained descriptive we'd be calling it science.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I dont think there's any such thing as 'human nature' in the sense the term is normally used, but a system could be classified as (un)natural to the degree which it respects the basic conditions required for human survival and flourishing. Keeping a plant in a dark room is unnatural not because light is somehow more natural than darkness, but simply because plants need light in order to survive.

Yes, that's exactly how I meant it.

Originally Posted by Boogster

Religion denies human nature? Heh, even the atheists would disagree with you.

I'm an atheist so that makes so sense whatsoever.

Instead of trying to claim that everyone disagrees with me, why don't you try to explain why you disagree with me?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

It's certainly natural/human nature to understand the world, and simple explanations give way to more accurate ones. However, what distinguishes more complex religions from animism is that religion becomes progressively more proscriptive (concerned with telling people what they should and shouldn't do) and less descriptive (explaining the world we live in). If religion had remained descriptive we'd be calling it science.

I don't see a fundamental difference. At one level religions just describe the world, they describe morality, they say doing X will increase your score and doing ¬X will decrease your score. A rule might tell you you should do something you can't, but that's not denying nature, it's just saying you can't always win. The target might be pious and unrealistic, but that doesn't change that the target wasn't put there by God, or mean the target is useless. Morality might be a fiction but moral fictions are incorporated by real people in the form of moral judgements. A religion might change the world it's in, making it less objective, but that's true for animism too, in fact for any social science, and doesn't make them less natural, I believe.

I'm assuming you're talking about telling people they should do things they won't. You could say any rule, any "should", is unnatural in that sense. But the Christian God is forgiving - the only commandment is to love Him and be as godly as possible (I think). The model of man as fallible seems scientific enough. Moral standards are all about the nature of society - real decisive judgments. Real people tend not to like my excuses no matter how correct they might seem to me. Helping me accept these judgements seems like helping me accept human social nature. Free will is perfectly scientific in a way. Are you saying all "shoulds" are unnatural? Or only the really demanding ones?



edit: In summary I would say that there's nothing inherent in religions to make them unnatural, but that their practice tends to be more natural to some people's nature than to others'. And the existence of religion is perfectly natural, and could be studied like biology (like with Dawkins' memetics), it's just a case of people accepting beliefs that appeal to their tastes.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by queball

I don't see a fundamental difference. At one level religions just describe the world, they describe morality, they say doing X will increase your score and doing ¬X will decrease your score.

Well, yes, religions try to pawn off their proscriptions as descriptions: do X not because we want you to do X but because God--this supreme ultimate being who you can't see or hear but with whom we are in communication--wants you to do X. Whatever religions tell you to do or not to do (go to church, don't eat pork, perform penance, kill infidels, etc) it's all for your benefit. To increase your score as you put it. And like score in a game, it's all arbitrary because you can't verify if any of it actually comes from God or even if God exists.

A rule might tell you you should do something you can't, but that's not denying nature, it's just saying you can't always win. The target might be pious and unrealistic, but that doesn't change that the target wasn't put there by God, or mean the target is useless. Morality might be a fiction but moral fictions are incorporated by real people in the form of moral judgements. A religion might change the world it's in, making it less objective, but that's true for animism too, in fact for any social science, and doesn't make them less natural, I believe.

I'm assuming you're talking about telling people they should do things they won't. You could say any rule, any "should", is unnatural in that sense.

No, I think that any rule should be consistent with what is necessary for people to survive and to have lives worth living. That is how I would differentiate between natural and unnatural rules.

But the Christian God is forgiving - the only commandment is to love Him and be as godly as possible (I think). The model of man as fallible seems scientific enough. Moral standards are all about the nature of society - real decisive judgments. Real people tend not to like my excuses no matter how correct they might seem to me. Helping me accept these judgements seems like helping me accept human social nature. Free will is perfectly scientific in a way. Are you saying all "shoulds" are unnatural? Or only the really demanding ones?

It's not a question of how demanding it is. A physician's advice to an overweight patient that he should go on a strict diet and exercise vigorously might be very demanding; but it's also natural. A religious vow of chastity or of poverty might also be very demanding; but I would consider them unnatural.

edit: In summary I would say that there's nothing inherent in religions to make them unnatural, but that their practice tends to be more natural to some people's nature than to others'. And the existence of religion is perfectly natural, and could be studied like biology (like with Dawkins' memetics), it's just a case of people accepting beliefs that appeal to their tastes.

The influence of religion (in the West) peaked in the middle ages. Whatever tastes religion once appealed to have diminished substantially.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Well, yes, religions try to pawn off their proscriptions as descriptions: do X not because we want you to do X but because God--this supreme ultimate being who you can't see or hear but with whom we are in communication--wants you to do X. Whatever religions tell you to do or not to do (go to church, don't eat pork, perform penance, kill infidels, etc) it's all for your benefit. To increase your score as you put it. And like score in a game, it's all arbitrary because you can't verify if any of it actually comes from God or even if God exists.

My Dungeon Keeper score isn't arbitrary. It might have a lot of arbitrariness but it is somehow connected to my ability. When, say, the Catholic Church is deciding their dogmas, they consider social benefit. It makes them more persuasive, after all. The Bible itself is hugely open to interpretation (context-free proclamations written in ancient Greek?) and in practical terms doesn't distort morality that much, I believe. (Straussianist view of religion I suppose)

And that's quite a claim you made - most evangelists seem to think it's perfectly verifiable. I suppose I'm questioning how or why you are calling something unnatural rather than, y'know, pretending to be understanding.

No, I think that any rule should be consistent with what is necessary for people to survive and to have lives worth living. That is how I would differentiate between natural and unnatural rules.

Do you mean a rule should be consistent logically, or that it should be consistent as a tool, in terms of function? Someone might tell me to apply myself 110%, that's inconsistent with human nature (or mathematics perhaps), but as a tool they use it's consistent with being successful. No-one actually goes chaste or purposefully poor except thoroughly crazy people who shouldn't be allowed to have children or property anyway. Most religious people seem perfectly normal, healthy, natural, to me.

Ok, religion is generally anti-life / a slave morality / an opiate. There's still an awful lot of wiggle room for the Meaning Of Life - I agree survival is very important, but don't you yanks say things like "live free or die", even though a slave can have a fairly meaningful life? I don't see how a fundie loses meaning by spending half his time praying that much more than our lives are less meaningful from spending eight hours a day sleeping. I usually waste the full twenty-four hours. And yeah tastes have changed. But I wouldn't say it's particularly unnatural to use an Amiga and listen to Elvis Presley, or whatever.

I mean, you could say a religion is unnatural in the same way as schizophrenia or autism, and they might have a genetic predisposition and so on. But I think there's a huge difference. Religious claims tend to just be a different set of values to what's popular, with generally broader influences and more traditions. These people advocating celibacy to schoolchildren might be nutjobs, or they might have the right answer, I don't see how it's obvious either way. Religion might be 100% crazy but there's still 10% sanity.

[Nadval]

I think the point he was tryin to make is that if you can say 'socialism is unnatural' because it requires humans to battle against their initial instinctives then religion is just as 'unnatural'. That's the way I perceived it anyway.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

On the contrary, Soviet Russia was a socialist system: they just had to find a way to deal with the endemic problem of Socialism, the lack of motivation to excel.

Lenin came up with the best solution with his NEP, intoduce some elements of Capitalism, allowing farm,ers and workers who produce over their state quotas to sell the excess for personal profit. This simply institutionalised what was happening anyways in an underground economy.

Stalin disapproved of the trappings of capitalism, eliminated the NEP, but was then faced with the same problem: how to motivate workers, farmers and scientists when there is no direct reward for excellence?

Simple, institute a policy of Nationalism, indoctrination and terror, the big three tools most used to motivate workers to greater heights when financial motivation is inpossible.


Oh, and by the way, having visited Cuba many times, (and really liking the country) I must point out that Cuba does NOT work, nor does its NOT working have anything to do with the Embargo. It has to do with an economic system that pays Doctors only marginally better then farm labourers. It has to do with an economic system where they sacrificed productivity at the expense of unemployment. With no incentive to excell, and no real incentive to use the nations quite excellent school systems, people go into the tourist industry and the black market in order to get their money. Their education and medical systems, the envy of the third world, are diminishing because of the lack of motivation for students to go through another 4-8 years of school so they can come out and make no more money.

Ask Cubans (and I have) what they want, and every one of them will say they have NO desire to see the embargo go down, that would just put a McDonalds on every corner, and besides they are doing quite well with trade and tourism from Europe. They want economic reforms which allow the people to see the fruits of their labours, a system which actually generates money and goods, rather then wasting them.

I consider myelf (in canadian terms) a liberal with socialist leanings, but I am also a Historian, so for me to be a socialist, somebody is going to have to show me a model, real or theoretical, that actually works. So far the closest thing I have seen in lenin's short lived NEP. Soviet style Communism is simply a logical outgrowth of a nation trying to find a solution to the one universal problem of socialism, and hitting on a solution that works, though with less than savoury side effects...

*sigh* I realise that arguing with Vermilllion is probably the stupidest thing one can do on these boards, but having studied Cuba in some detail for the past two years, I feel I should at least give it a shot.

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/bethel2.htm

The top paragraph bad, the bottom one good. I believe it reflects the differing focii of each - Cuba didn't do so well by capitalist standards, yet deed exceedingly well by socialist standards. In the mid 1980s the infant mortality rate was lower than the US.

Yes, the economy centred far to much on sugar than it should've been, and yes it relied to heavily on the Soviet Union. At least now it can make some return off tourism and trade with the majority of the west. However, I would like to know which Cubans you asked about their situation - predominantly young or old? I have read sources saying that many older Cubans remember how it was before the revolution, the good work Castro has done, despite the economic decline. I'm not saying that Cuba doesn't or didn't have its problems. I'm saying that as far as socialist systems go, it was and is the best example of success, as demonstrated by its longevity.

You're right, there is no incentive to undertake skilled professions when the economic incentives aren't there. However, I disagree with your point that it stifles innovation. People will still innovate, no matter what system they work in, even if it's finding an easier way to do things. Humans naturally look for the easiest and simplest way - economics doesn't change this.

I am also interested in your views on when the Cuban economy suffered its largest decline, apart from the fall of COMECON. I leave you with a quote from historian Marifeli Perez-Stable:

"Without sugar, no Cuba, without US market, no sugar"

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Nadval

I think the point he was tryin to make is that if you can say 'socialism is unnatural' because it requires humans to battle against their initial instinctives then religion is just as 'unnatural'. That's the way I perceived it anyway.

What part of socialism is unnatural? The basic motivation, a desire for a fairer, more egalitarian society may be unnatural for some, but then again exploiting resources for the highest personal gain is unnatural to others.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I'm an atheist so that makes so sense whatsoever.

Instead of trying to claim that everyone disagrees with me, why don't you try to explain why you disagree with me?

You stated that religion 'denied human nature'. I merely commented that an oft-used atheist arguement is that religion is the moral equivalent of a place to hide: an escape for the weak-minded. In other words, many atheists argue that religion merely fulfills the instinctual desire to run or hide from life and death.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by queball

Ok, religion is generally anti-life / a slave morality / an opiate. There's still an awful lot of wiggle room for the Meaning Of Life - I agree survival is very important, but don't you yanks say things like "live free or die", even though a slave can have a fairly meaningful life? I don't see how a fundie loses meaning by spending half his time praying that much more than our lives are less meaningful from spending eight hours a day sleeping. I usually waste the full twenty-four hours. And yeah tastes have changed. But I wouldn't say it's particularly unnatural to use an Amiga and listen to Elvis Presley, or whatever.

As a Christian, it's pretty difficult to argue against your assertions, because they are, put quite simply, one-dimensional, which in itself is not wrong but makes my job harder.
For example, I would not call Christianity a 'slave morality'. Consider your life. How are you more free than I? You follow rules laid down by society, I follow rules set down by God. If I may get all theological, more importantly, Christians believe that by Jesus dying, they are free of the consequences of sin. Of course, you could just choose to discount this because you cannot prove it, but as it is a pillar of the Christian faith, you will have to accept that I believe it, and as such, perfectly logically, do not believe myself a slave.
Therein lies the problem. According to what I believe I can justify myself, but If you will not give any credence to what I believe, I shall always look a little foolish.

[Vermillion]

Arguing with me is not stupid. I like to pretend I am an exprt on all things, but the reality is I am only an expert on MOST things.

Originally Posted by Summanus

The top paragraph bad, the bottom one good. I believe it reflects the differing focii of each - Cuba didn't do so well by capitalist standards, yet deed exceedingly well by socialist standards. In the mid 1980s the infant mortality rate was lower than the US.

OK, this is generally true, but is the cause-and-effect relationship you ascribe to it realistic? Cuiba did not do well by capitalist standards because the government at the time was corupt and incompetent. The economy lived on Tourism and sugar, and no attempt was made to alter that fact, it was the playground of crinimals and playboys from the US, and the Cuban government was well paid by the above to make sure nothing damaged their fun.

Following the revolution, one of Castro's first tasks was to try and reduce the countries dependence on Sugar. Agriculture's estimated share in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell from 24 percent in 1965 to 10 percent in 1985, and manufacturing's share rose from 23 to 36 percent. This industrialisation, a common hallmark of all newly communist nations, was a very effective way of increasing revenue and improving economic output. In addition, critical Soviet supplied facilitated this upgrade. Soviet aid to Cuba tends to be exaggerated, but they did provide two things utterly critical to Cuba's development at this stage: subsidised oil to power the new industrialisation (at the time Cuba had not a single domestic oil well) and a fixed inflated price for sugar exports to the Warsaw pact. This provided both fuel and capitol necessary for this restructuring of the economy.

So we have Cuba's economy florishing in comparason to the Batista years, but is that because socialism improved it? Or because a nationalistic leader came to power who modernised the economy? Could the same changes have occured has a nationalistic leader modernised the economy but left it capitalist?

Communism truly benefitted the country because it was able to nationalise all the (mostly US) private industry and take over teir successful operations, that certainly helped the new egime. Aid from the USSR was also very valuable in facilitating transition. But in the end the 'ism' which helped Cuba the most was nationalism, a facet missing in their previous leaders from Tomás Estrada Palma to batista himself.

However, I would like to know which Cubans you asked about their situation - predominantly young or old? I have read sources saying that many older Cubans remember how it was before the revolution, the good work Castro has done, despite the economic decline.

The ones I spoke to were predominantly young. Even the young there still love Castro, one told me : "Castro was a great man and a geat leader, but the world is diferent now and we need a new great man". The Cubanm economy certainly functions, but that is dispite socialism, not because of it. Factory output per capita is one of the lowest in any industrialised nation, worker productivity similarily low. Cuba has neither the nationalistic indoctrination nor the instruments of state terror which the USSR used to overcome the critical motivation issue fatal to the socialist system.

Compared to the Central American and carribian average, you are right Cuba is not that bad overall, with slightly higher per capita incomes, and significantly higher rates of literacy and longevity. But imagine how much better it would be if they just had a productive economy...

I'm not saying that Cuba doesn't or didn't have its problems. I'm saying that as far as socialist systems go, it was and is the best example of success, as demonstrated by its longevity.

I disagree, I think the best example to date of a socialist system is the USSR, it found a way around the fatal flaw of the socialist system. When in the name of a softer face and himanity the USSR started to do away with the arm of terror and indoctrination, productivity fell across the board.

However, I disagree with your point that it stifles innovation. People will still innovate, no matter what system they work in, even if it's finding an easier way to do things. Humans naturally look for the easiest and simplest way - economics doesn't change this.

Laziness does not equal innovation. People look for the way to do things that provides them with the greatest advantage. In a system where there is no profit to be made from increased efficiency, there is no reason to make things more efficient. In a system where pay is in no way linked to productivity, there is no reason to make yourself more productive. In a system without competition, there is no reason to make yourself more competitive.

Ask yourself this: The USSR held a technological lead in many industries even at the end of the cold war. They were top of the world in Submarine missile and torpedo technology, in helicopters, in biological warfare, in miniturisation of atomics, in fusion power... though they lagged behind in other industries (most notably, and critically, computers) they were still a technological leader, with the ability to produce things few or no other nations could.

So why were Soviet made cars so awful? Why did they fall apart in the rain? Due to their technology, the USSR had the CAPACITY to produce the best cars around, so why did they produce the worst? same goes with nearly every other domestic civilian industry.

because there was no incentive to do so. Yes, you could modernise your plant by investing capitol and laying off inefficient workers, but if you do that you gain nothing, you spend money and people lose jobs, so why bother?

People need reasons to innovate, excel and produce, and socialism provides no such incentive.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Summanus

What part of socialism is unnatural?

The part where your 'income' (in goods or money) is completely unrelated to your output.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by queball

Religion might be 100% crazy but there's still 10% sanity.

I guess we can both agree on that point, so I'll just leave it at that.

[JonnyBGood]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability rite?

Originally Posted by Boogster

For example, I would not call Christianity a 'slave morality'. Consider your life. How are you more free than I? You follow rules laid down by society, I follow rules set down by God.

The idea here is that the rules laid down by society (even though you'll find most people won't agree with all of the rules created by whatever society they live in) are more reasonable or enable people to live "better" (for example, being shot in the face for walking outside wouldn't make your life "better") than those laid down by all religions (so far). It should be noted that most people aren't arguing for the ability of the majority to decide all rules and laws, but rather for a more sensible system.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability rite?

The idea here is that the rules laid down by society (even though you'll find most people won't agree with all of the rules created by whatever society they live in) are more reasonable or enable people to live "better" (for example, being shot in the face for walking outside wouldn't make your life "better") than those laid down by all religions (so far). It should be noted that most people aren't arguing for the ability of the majority to decide all rules and laws, but rather for a more sensible system.

Frankly, I would disagree. If everyone married and didn't get divorced (if divorce wasn't such a viable and accepted option), for example, there would be FEWER* broken homes.

*Edited for Vermillion, feeling rather ashamed of myself.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Frankly, I would disagree. If everyone married and didn't get divorced (if divorce wasn't such a viable and accepted option), for example, there would be less broken homes.

Don't be inane. Clearly there would be less broken homes but would the benefit of there being less broken homes surpass the negative effects of forcing couples to live together when they no longer loved each other? The real question is whether or not the overall situation would be improved, not whether or not obeying christian morality has a bonus which not following the christian ethical system does not possess.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Don't be inane. Clearly there would be less broken homes but would the benefit of there being less broken homes surpass the negative effects of forcing couples to live together when they no longer loved each other?

Firstly, yes, I think it would.

And I said nothing of 'force'. Christians are not forced to stay married. However, Christians should, and do, take marriage more seriously than society in general. They enter marriage carefully, knowing that 'love' as it is manifested in the early stages of a relationship is not likely to last. They are more willing to compromise once married.
Of course, I am not suggesting that only Christians are capable of creating a successful marriage, but that, it seems to me, modern society is not.

[Vermillion]

Firstly, there would be fewer broken homes, not less. Sorry, but that is one of my big pet peeves, along with the constant and irritating misuse of the word 'Decimate'.

Secondly, Divorce is a natural outgrowth of empowerment of women, now that partners are considered equal, and BOTH have to be happy in a marriage, as opposed to the good old days when a man had to be happy and a woman had to be present, then divorce is an issue. Christian morality on the issue of divorce ignores the reality that divorce is an end to a process; that process is misery, unhappiness and lost love, sometimes even going so far as disgust or violence. Forcing people to remain in such a situation is desperatly unhealthy for them and for any offspring.

As soon as Christianity finds a way to make the process illegal, then they can make divorce illegal as well. Religion is a relative newcomer to the institution of marriage anyways, so I hardly think they can claim to be the ultimate authority on the issue.

Saying that Chistians are 'more willing to compromise' is silly. What would be more accurate is that Christians MAY be more willing to deal with the misery and suffering of an unhappy marriage, assuming that it will pay of in the afterlife, and ignoring the effect this miserable situation has on any children.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Firstly, there would be fewer broken homes, not less. Sorry, but that is one of my big pet peeves, along with the constant and irritating misuse of the word 'Decimate'.

Edited.

Secondly, Divorce is a natural outgrowth of empowerment of women, now that partners are considered equal, and BOTH have to be happy in a marriage, as opposed to the good old days when a man had to be happy and a woman had to be present, then divorce is an issue. Christian morality on the issue of divorce ignores the reality that divorce is an end to a process; that process is misery, unhappiness and lost love, sometimes even going so far as disgust or violence. Forcing people to remain in such a situation is desperatly unhealthy for them and for any offspring.

As soon as Christianity finds a way to make the process illegal, then they can make divorce illegal as well. Religion is a relative newcomer to the institution of marriage anyways, so I hardly think they can claim to be the ultimate authority on the issue.

Saying that Chistians are 'more willing to compromise' is silly. What would be more accurate is that Christians MAY be more willing to deal with the misery and suffering of an unhappy marriage, assuming that it will pay of in the afterlife, and ignoring the effect this miserable situation has on any children.

Firstly, you call religion a 'newcomer to the institution of marriage'. On the contrary, marriage is a Christian institution, as I'm sure any reverend, politician or feminist would tell you.
Secondly, equality in marriage is not merely, as you assume, the inevitable result of a post-modern trend towards the empowerment of women, but was entrenched as part of the laws set out in the Bible anyhow.
The 'process' towards divorce that you describe, is not often manifested in Christian families, or at least, less than in secular families. As such, my point is proved. I argued that marriage is taken more seriously by Christians, and that it often works better when not disscociated from it's religious base.
When I referred to 'compromise', I meant that Christians make more effort to resolve issues that often lead to divorce because both marriage and divorce are taken more seriously. I don't think that compromise should in an way lead to having a 'miserable effect' on the children. Why should it?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Firstly, yes, I think it would.

Well from personal anecdotal experience with people who stayed in unhappy marriages and people who got divorces I can relatively confidently say that it worked better for the parents who got divorced. As for the children all of them (bar a negligible handful) ended up fairly cool people so I don't see how staying in an unhappy marriage would have benefitted anyone here.

And I said nothing of 'force'. Christians are not forced to stay married.

This is my fault. I live in Ireland where roman catholicism (which forbids divorce) is the dominant religion. From researching the idea a bit it seems that maybe they are more christian (in the sense of more faithfully following the supposed teachings of Jesus) than christian religions which allow divorce.

Originally Posted by Mark 10:2-12

2. And the Pharisees, coming to him, asked him, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? tempting him. 3. But he answering said to them, What did Moses command you? 4. And they said, Moses permitted to write a letter of divorcement, and to send her away. 5. And Jesus answering said to them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote to you this commandment. 6. But at the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7. For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8. And they shall be one flesh: therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9. What therefore God hath joined together let not man separate. 10. And in the house his disciples again asked him about the same subject. 11. And he saith to them, Whososever shall divorce his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12. And if a woman shall divorce her husband, and shall be married to another, she committeth adultery.

This certainly seems to be urging a law, which if it is not ultimately backed up by force is not really a law.

However, Christians should, and do, take marriage more seriously than society in general. They enter marriage carefully, knowing that 'love' as it is manifested in the early stages of a relationship is not likely to last. They are more willing to compromise once married.

So maybe we should urge everyone to take marriage more seriously? I'd certainly support this. In terms of a legal system your stance on divorce doesn't appear to be different to mine. I'd allow it, as would you, I'd urge people to take marriage seriously, as would you. So how the christian legal system is superior to mine, as it's the same thing, I have no idea.

Of course, I am not suggesting that only Christians are capable of creating a successful marriage, but that, it seems to me, modern society is not.

As I pointed out it's not really an argument for the supremacy of modern society, I can't see how anyone could claim modern society to be utterly devoid of flaws, but rather against

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Well from personal anecdotal experience with people who stayed in unhappy marriages and people who got divorces I can relatively confidently say that it worked better for the parents who got divorced. As for the children all of them (bar a negligible handful) ended up fairly cool people so I don't see how staying in an unhappy marriage would have benefitted anyone here.

I could just as confidently claim that however serious the outcome of a broken marriage, the effects are negated if the marriage never ends in divorce.

This is my fault. I live in Ireland where roman catholicism (which forbids divorce) is the dominant religion. From researching the idea a bit it seems that maybe they are more christian (in the sense of more faithfully following the supposed teachings of Jesus) than christian religions which allow divorce.

I am not a Catholic. My church looks down upon divorce. Marriage is considered to be of the utmost importance. However, the leaders would never forcibly intrude upon a marriage, or ostracise a divorcee, even though divorce is considered contrary to God's intentions.

Originally Posted by Mark 10:2-12
2. And the Pharisees, coming to him, asked him, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? tempting him. 3. But he answering said to them, What did Moses command you? 4. And they said, Moses permitted to write a letter of divorcement, and to send her away. 5. And Jesus answering said to them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote to you this commandment. 6. But at the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7. For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8. And they shall be one flesh: therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9. What therefore God hath joined together let not man separate. 10. And in the house his disciples again asked him about the same subject. 11. And he saith to them, Whososever shall divorce his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12. And if a woman shall divorce her husband, and shall be married to another, she committeth adultery.

This certainly seems to be urging a law, which if it is not ultimately backed up by force is not really a law.

Biblical law is ultimately upheld by God, not through force. Moreover, Christianity is founded upon choice: we have been given the choice to ignore or disobey the laws set down by God.

So maybe we should urge everyone to take marriage more seriously? I'd certainly support this. In terms of a legal system your stance on divorce doesn't appear to be different to mine. I'd allow it, as would you, I'd urge people to take marriage seriously, as would you. So how the christian legal system is superior to mine, as it's the same thing, I have no idea.

The difference is simple, yet profoundly significant: you see marriage as merely a 'legal institution', whereas a Christian sees it as a spritiual bond sanctified in God's presence, which is why marriage is taken so seriously.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I could just as confidently claim that however serious the outcome of a broken marriage, the effects are negated if the marriage never ends in divorce.

Maybe we should conduct a co-operative global survey then?

I am not a Catholic. My church looks down upon divorce. Marriage is considered to be of the utmost importance. However, the leaders would never forcibly intrude upon a marriage, or ostracise a divorcee, even though divorce is considered contrary to God's intentions.

Biblical law is ultimately upheld by God, not through force. Moreover, Christianity is founded upon choice: we have been given the choice to ignore or disobey the laws set down by God.

The difference is simple, yet profoundly significant: you see marriage as merely a 'legal institution', whereas a Christian sees it as a spritiual bond sanctified in God's presence, which is why marriage is taken so seriously.

None of this is really about my point which concerned the legal system itself. (As an aside if god doesn't use force what the **** is the point of him? I'm certainly not going to agree to go to hell because of the various ways in which I break the ten commandments or whatever. Also if you have a choice over whether or not to follow a law, and there is no objectively negative affect regardless of which you choose, it's not really a law. Finally in future would you please make statements concerning your own particular sect of christianity rather than christianity as a whole when it is quite clear that a large number of christians, and those in authority in various other christian religions, oppose what you say is freely allowed by christianity.)

I said

The idea here is that the rules laid down by society are more reasonable or enable people to live "better" than those laid down by all religions.

to which you replied

Frankly I would disagree

and went on to give the example of marriage and divorce. If you do not intend on arguing against my point concerning the legal system then please don't reply as if you do. It's a waste of time for both of us. You can see marriage as a small bunch of grapes for all I care, as long as you don't incorporate this idea into the laws of whichever state you live in.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Firstly, you call religion a 'newcomer to the institution of marriage'. On the contrary, marriage is a Christian institution, as I'm sure any reverend, politician or feminist would tell you.

While I doubt that, even if they did, every historian would tell them they are all completely wrong. Marriage has existed since long before the time of Christ, and in fact long before the time of the writing of the old testament.

The early books of the Old testament were written (depending on who you ask) between about 1500BC and 800BC.

-Marriages were always recorded in early Egypt, we have references to marriage as far back as 3800 BC. In once or two cases, we even have the actual marriage contract preserved; A marriage contract between king Senruset and the daughter of a Hithite king on the occasion of concluding a peace treaty. (1900 BC)

-The earliest recorded civilisation (Sumer, 4500-4000) was rife with marriage, in fact the King of Sumer went through a ceremony designed to marry himself to the fertility goddess Inanna.

-One of the first written tales we have from Sumer is called the 'Marriage of Martu', detailing the quest of a young woman for a husband.

-Marriage in Sumer was governed by many laws and policies covering Dowry, charge of children and even rights to divorce.

-About a quarter of the laws inscribed in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (1750 BC) one of the most well known and important historical documents in the ancient world, are Marriage laws. Parents arranged marriages for their children. After marriage, the party signed a marriage contract. Without this contract, no one was considered legally married. While the husband provided a bridal payment, the woman's parents were responsible for a dowry to the husband. Dowries were carefully monitored and governed by regulations.

-During the wars between Sumer and Akkad, marriage was often used as a political tool to cement treaties and friendships, we have literally dozens of references to these political marriages.


So, thats the origins of marriage. However even in the Christian Era, marriage was not a religious institution. It seems forgotten by most, but religious control over marriage is actually a fairly recent event. marriages were a secular event until the 1200s, performed by local magistrates, mayors or just the local elder. While prayers were exchanged of course (it being a very religious age) there was no involvement of the church at all in the institution of marriage, in fact the church of Rome SPECIFICALLY did not want anything to do with marriage.

By the 1400s, the involvement of the church had become more common, and priests were asked to bless unions in the eyes of God. Yet still it was far MORE common to have marriages outside the authority of the church, civil and religious marriages co-existed. It was only in 1563 at the Council of Trent that the Vatican decided all marriages were to be a religious affair.

The exception of course, was the New World colonists, who violated this decision and decided that the civil union would continue to be allowed, and continued to practice civil unions in every state of the union except Virginia. By the early 1800s, civil marriages were gain becoming the norm in Europe, following the lead of their American cousins.

Secondly, equality in marriage is not merely, as you assume, the inevitable result of a post-modern trend towards the empowerment of women, but was entrenched as part of the laws set out in the Bible anyhow.

Well, what can i say but that humanity and the Church seem to have 'accidentally missed' that bit of the Bible for a couple thousand years... Besides, I seem to recall a pasage in the Old Testament demanding that a woman submit to man as man submits to Christ: that does not exactly seem the paragon of women's Lib you make it out to be...

The 'process' towards divorce that you describe, is not often manifested in Christian families, or at least, less than in secular families. As such, my point is proved.

No, your point is blatantly asserted with no evidence or justification whatsoever. Where on earth do you get the idea that strife in Christian marriages is any less then in secular ones? Do you have any justification for such a statement?


[/quote]When I referred to 'compromise', I meant that Christians make more effort to resolve issues that often lead to divorce because both marriage and divorce are taken more seriously. I don't think that compromise should in any way lead to having a 'miserable effect' on the children. Why should it?[/quote]

The first part of that statement is similar to before, a blatant assertion. I said already that Christians may stay in the relationship because they have no choice, and thus be forced to try alternatives, but that is due to compulsion not enlightenment.

The second part is completely disingenuous and you know it. Compromise does not hurt the children, hate, spite, arguing, fighting, and the inability to compromise, which happens as often in Christian as in secular households, is what hurts the children.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Summanus

What part of socialism is unnatural? The basic motivation, a desire for a fairer, more egalitarian society may be unnatural for some, but then again exploiting resources for the highest personal gain is unnatural to others.

If you actualy read what I was saying, I wasn't stating that socialism is unnatural. Read the thread before you post.


Slightly off topic, but interesting nevertheless.

[Vermillion]

Silence?

Thats unfortunate, this was an interesting topic for a change...

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Silence?

To continue this debate, please insert £2.50 in the requisite coin slot.

[Dante Hicks]

This topic went horribly off-topic. You should all be discussing MY ideas. I demand you're all banned.

Unfortunately I've been busy over the last couple of evenings, but my take on "natural". I think it would be more useful to use a term like 'healthy' when Tact's usage of 'natural' occurs. Natural has lots of other implications and certainly when I hear it I partially interpret it as "naturally ocurring". I think healthy would be a more useful term.

What I particularly like about this thread was the original poster specifically distanced himself from actually-existing-socialism (i.e. USSR) and Vermillion et al then barged in with critiques of said systems. That was pretty .

Bonus points for everyone who said "socialism goes against human nature" or something equally inane.

[JonnyBGood]

In a communist country you wouldn't be free to express your opinion T&F so I recommend you thank god and the flag before you spew anymore of your hippy bullshit on here please.

[LHC]

Communism is fueled by the blood of the competent, why is this any more fair?

[Nadval]

The point isn't "capitalism is bad but communism has equally bad and flawed features". The point is "Capitalism is bad, so what would be better?" It gets very tiresome that every time someone makes a just criticism of capitalism the pro-capitalist response is "but communism is <insert something bad about soviet russia or other existing/examples of communist countries>". This doesn't offer a solution to the problems, nor does "yeh well we can't change things", or "life's unfair".

[JonnyBGood]

One would suggest you provide us with some sort of alternative system then. It's kind of hard to have an argument when there's only one side to it. Plus capitalism is great so shut up

[Nadval]

Well if I could just think up something like that *click* then it would have been done already. Plus the flaws and unjust natures of capitalism must first be popularly established before change can come about. When I leave college maybe I'll start mapping out Britain's future economic structure, right now I'm still considering what is morally acceptable/unacceptable and how things might be improved.

[JonnyBGood]

Don't be playa hating plz.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Well if I could just think up something like that *click* then it would have been done already. Plus the flaws and unjust natures of capitalism must first be popularly established before change can come about. When I leave college maybe I'll start mapping out Britain's future economic structure, right now I'm still considering what is morally acceptable/unacceptable and how things might be improved.

I say again, Capitalism is just an economic system, it can no more be moral or immoral then any other system, and to start with that as a basic premise means every opinion you will have on the sybject will be flawed.

Democracy is a system, dictatorship is a system. Is one more moral than the other? I suspect people might answer yes without thinking, but they would be in error. Is an enlightened dictator who uses his power to care for and benefit his people more or less 'moral' then a popular democracy where a racial majority of 52% uses the tyranny of the majority to opress a racial minority of 48%?

Systems are systems, they either work or they do not (pure socialism does not work) and the rest is left up to those who apply the system. Some systems are more open to abuse, absolutely, dictatorship for example, but if it is abused that is tstill he fault of the abusers.

Remember the origin of the term 'dictator' was actually an elected position in Rome, when in times of crisis Consuls might be voted dictatorial powers' until the crisis passed. Its just a system, and carries with it no intrinsic value of right or wrong.

[Vermillion]

I should add, how well a system works also depends on your desired end state. If your desired end state is an egalitarian system which, though poor, unprogressive and uncompetitive, places the needs of all individuals on a level playing field, then by those terms I suppose Socialism does 'work'.

But in any competition with a system that embraces progress, change and development, it will always come out second best...

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Democracy is a system, dictatorship is a system. Is one more moral than the other? I suspect people might answer yes without thinking, but they would be in error. Is an enlightened dictator who uses his power to care for and benefit his people more or less 'moral' then a popular democracy where a racial majority of 52% uses the tyranny of the majority to opress a racial minority of 48%?

But do you not think that any given system is inclined, in practise, to have certain failings and good points? If you say yes to that then I don't see the basis for your argument; X system is intrinsically more likely to exhibit, in practise, certain features, and those features may be classed as either moral or immoral. Of course, this judgement is entirely subjective, but it will still take place in any given person. The question is what you think of those inclinations that a system has.

I don't see much of a point in talking about hypotheticals.

[Nadval]

Indeed, not to mention the fact that dictatorship is morally unjust because the people don't have the right to decide who governs them. "Taking away people's right to choose who leads them is not immoral" is total crap. Plus an economic system can be corrupt and unjust simply on it's principles, again to say not is stupidity.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Indeed, not to mention the fact that dictatorship is morally unjust because the people don't have the right to decide who governs them. "Taking away people's right to choose who leads them is not immoral" is total crap. Plus an economic system can be corrupt and unjust simply on it's principles, again to say not is stupidity.

Technically, democracy does exactly the same thing, except rather than one individual removing this choice from you, it's the "majority". The system whereby you would get to choose your leader would be Anarchy.

Are you arguing that Anarchy is the only moral system of government? (paging snurx)

[Nadval]

Ok failing to let people have an impact on who leads them, if you're going to be pedantic.

[Ste]

Democracy is flawed as in general people are idiots.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Systems are systems, they either work or they do not (pure socialism does not work) and the rest is left up to those who apply the system. Some systems are more open to abuse, absolutely, dictatorship for example, but if it is abused that is tstill he fault of the abusers.

Once again, you have missed his point that when you say socialism you are not talking about what I (and probably Nadval) is talking about. If this was a thread on "Soviet Socialism" then your points would be right on.

Your points on systems have some validity, but some systems rely on immoral or incorrect premises. Absolute monarchies are immoral because they rely on the premise of the divine right of kings. I'd say that capitalism relies on private ownership of land and artificial imposition of intellectual property rights - which to me are both immoral and incorrect premises.