Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism

  • 55 Replies
  • 17197 Views
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2006, 02:06:15 PM »
Quote from: "Gustave5436"
um, taking money form the rich to redistribute is not stealing.  The only way the rich got so wealthy is by stealing some of the profits that the workers worked for.  Redisributing the wealth, if anything, is righting the crime that the wealthy have done.  Unless you believe that rich people work a thousand times harder than the workers, and thus deserve a thousand or mroe times as much wealth as the workers?


So you're saying it ought to be impossible to gain large amounts of wealth, and that any means conceived of doing so are by definition wrong?

By the way, are you a proponent of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."?  Or do you merely state that income should be directly proportional to "how hard somebody works"?

Your statements in the above paragraph seem to indicate that you would agree with the latter axiom.  If this is the case, what about people who work hard but produce nothing (i.e. "A for effort people")?  Also, how do you compare how hard people work?  If it's number of hours spent on the job, then you should realize that many managers work longer hours than their employees.  How do you compare different kinds of labor, or do you leave that comparison aside?

I suggest that people who make "thousands of times" as much as the workers (they are of course themselves workers but I think I know what you mean) are producing something that is "thousands of times" more valuable to consumers as the work itself.

In all this I of course admit the existence of non-producing gluttons who merely milk the labors of others -- I think this despicable, but no less despicable than the notion that stealing from people is okay, nor am I more offended by them than by the suggestion that if I acquire wealth, I must necessarily be one of them.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2006, 12:32:45 AM »
trouble doer,

  I laugh at your crdentials.  The more you have from those sources only indicates how thoroughly you have had your brain washed, and I spit on their reputation as worthless and ignorant.  You are damn right I mean to sound irate.

  And by the way, the New York Times is a right wing journal as it backs the eternally murderous and universally disrespectful US foreign policy, and yet a journal like that praised Chomsky.  He is certainly respected by a widearray of college and university professors throughout the world.  As a matter of fact he was the single most widely read syndicated journalist in the US and in the world in the 1970's.

  I have travelled through more than a few countries, and the vast majority of the people I see everywhere (including booksellers and persons at places of education like libraries and educated people in addition to common persons) are definitely socialist or something akin to it in their outlook.

  Most of the Greeks I know, for example, with an interest in politics are very much in agreement wioththe opinions of Chomsky.

  I have not investigated Chomsky's personal assetts, but so what?  Is he supporting terrorist organizations?  He is certainly helping to swing public opinion against US foreign policy.  Do you own mutual funds?  So what if he owns mutual funds?  Perhaps he does not use the correct colour toilet tissue?  This is talk about rubbish because you have no legitimate argument agaist someone who speaks the truth.

  As to the middle ages, no I do not read Latin fluently.  I did take two years of it in college (we in the lower classes use the standard Wheelock's Latin Grammar unlike you upper snobs that are so well versed in pig latin).  I do however read Greek to some extent, and I am increasing my proficiency in that.  I do have a great number of medieval works including histories and theology in Greek.  I even posess a full set of Migne's Patrologiae Latina and Patrolagiae Graece.  (Do you posess those, you unintelligent moron with his ignorant head in the skies?) I do have english translations of a great number of these.  I am learning Greek which will progress much more once I get there (where I am moving permanently later this year).  

  My point is that all the Greek I have learned and will learn will be derived completely from my own interaction with Greeks and my personal study - none of it from western education or university, although a significant amount from what is taought me at Greek Orthodox monastery.

  You assume because the raw sewage taught by your demonic american education system (May God damn america and its education system.) which only teaches such languages to the very few privileged persons that I would be ignorant of them.  Well, you were wrong, you stupid bastard.  I had the sense not to learn Greek in an environment where the interpretation of it is controlled and manipulated as in the artificial american education system.  I learn Greek in Greece and from greek books available to common people.  I realize the spoken language is demotic.  The old and more correct form is katharevousa.  There has been a battle between these for preeminence in Greek society for almost two hundred years which the demotic (dumbed down and simplified, westernized greek) won in 1976 when the government ordered that it would be the form taught in high schools.  This is the invasion of western civilization into Greece which began with the "assistance" of the western colonial powers in the Greek War of independence of 1821.  (The west has sought to dumb down and westernize the entire world in similar ways in every country.)  The higher institutions in greece while agreeing with the politics of the american left in general has unfortunately gradually abandoned their traditions due to the westernized universities.  What is taught in the universities and what is taught in the monasteries are often at variance.  Demotic is simply dumbed down katharevousa.  The Greek courses sold in western book stores like Borders is demotic.  In western universitiies, archaic pre-Christian homeric Greek is taught.  (To give credit to the superiority of traditional roman catholic schools in general over other education in america, I have seen roman catholic high school students with knowledge of latin or even greek superior to that of public school university students.)  In greek monasteries, katharevousa is still spoken, and the beauty of katharevousa is that one will at the same time both speak and understand modern Greek more correctly than anyone else, but also be able to read the byzantine manuscripts as well.  And a Greek Orthodox Christian Monastery is precisely where I am headed.  

  I would say that the mandated teaching of demotic greek in greek high schools is deliberately designed to wean and separate upcoming greek generations from their own heritage.  This is disastrous, but perhaps I will initiate a new post on the education system, yet another casualty of modern western civilization.

  As to the history of the modern era, I did derive much apprehension of it from Hilaire Belloc.  I think traditional catholic histroians are a decent source of information to counter the conventional protestant British point of view, which is precisely what you hold to, or a direct derivation of it.  How is investigating esoteric medieval latin (or even greek) manuscripts going to make you come closer to the truth about the superiority of capitalism over the middle ages economy?

  Capitalism has two enemies:  distributism (if I can give a name to an economic aspect of middle ages economics) as well as socialism (a modern enemy of capitalism).  It seems to me the arguments against capitalism of both of capitalism's enemies are valid.  I say capitalists are less intelligent than socialists because almost every single advocate of capitalism has never taken the time to investigate both sides.  I had always had your views, troubador, but Hilaire Belloc's histories were the first time I was actually aquainted with the catholic view of British history and a glimpse at medieval economics that contradicted everything I had ever been taught in school.

  Does the fact that I once ardently believed as you did (well into my late twenties) and changed my views after finally investigating the other side not have any significance for you?  Perhaps you have been brainwashed all too thoroughly, or are you tied up with vested interests which prevent you from recognizing the truth?

  I confess I simply love the truth.  I am not making any money from this as you are.  If you want me to acknowledge your lies because it would hamper your position if you were to disavow the "consensus," then damn your ignoble profession.  I say again I spit on your damnable and worthless profession.  I will never respect you propagators of stinking lies or your degree certificates.  

  I take back what I said...actually, I could make good use of them as toilet tissue - so they are not totally worthless.

- Dionysios

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2006, 08:43:19 AM »
Troubadour: There now, you've gone and made him angry.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2006, 10:03:47 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
So you're saying it ought to be impossible to gain large amounts of wealth, and that any means conceived of doing so are by definition wrong?


He's saying that gaining wealth without contributing to society is wrong. Bear in mind that even a football player like David Beckham is a proleteriat, albeit an immensley over-paid one.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
By the way, are you a proponent of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."?  Or do you merely state that income should be directly proportional to "how hard somebody works"?


I certainly hope he's not. That's a Marx quote. Marx also said "If democratic socialism is what marxism means, then I am not a Marxist".

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Your statements in the above paragraph seem to indicate that you would agree with the latter axiom.  If this is the case, what about people who work hard but produce nothing (i.e. "A for effort people")?  Also, how do you compare how hard people work?  If it's number of hours spent on the job, then you should realize that many managers work longer hours than their employees.  How do you compare different kinds of labor, or do you leave that comparison aside?


The manager usually doesn't own the business. In a socialist state the factories are collectively owned by the workers. All managerial duties are done by a commitee of workers.

We're not saying managers are useless, it's just that they are only needed in a free market because they are more efficient than collective management.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
I suggest that people who make "thousands of times" as much as the workers (they are of course themselves workers but I think I know what you mean) are producing something that is "thousands of times" more valuable to consumers as the work itself.


The captain of the Blue jay's is worth thousands more than doctors?

Quote from: "Erasmus"
In all this I of course admit the existence of non-producing gluttons who merely milk the labors of others -- I think this despicable, but no less despicable than the notion that stealing from people is okay, nor am I more offended by them than by the suggestion that if I acquire wealth, I must necessarily be one of them.


That's exactly what I think as well.

Note: The key tenents of socialism are collective ownership of the means of production and a planned economy. Wages are based on how hard you work and what you contribute to society rather than how much profit you deliver to the shareholder of your company.

So you could technically have a socialist system that you approve of Erasmus, as long as people who worked harder got financial rewards for doing so.

And, troubadour, I'm getting around to your post don't worry.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2006, 08:05:44 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Troubadour: There now, you've gone and made him angry.

-Erasmus


He's just insecure that he came up against someone that points out flaws in his "arguements" which add up to a little more then a bad understanding of medieval history, propaganda from the Chomsky corporate brandname, and a vision of the USA that doesn't exist. I think the fact he can't even make a post without personally attacking and assuming things about a person over the internet whom he doesn't even know every other sentance is evidence of this. I took that post and sent it to a few people I know and they got a kick out of it too.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2006, 09:42:25 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Note: The key tenents of socialism are collective ownership of the means of production and a planned economy. Wages are based on how hard you work and what you contribute to society rather than how much profit you deliver to the shareholder of your company.

So you could technically have a socialist system that you approve of Erasmus, as long as people who worked harder got financial rewards for doing so.


I suppose it could so happen that such a system could arise and that I might approve of it.  But my approval would only be momentary and I would need to keep measuring the system to see if I still approved.

I'm pretty hesitant about the whole "wages are based on how hard you work" thing.  How do you tell how hard somebody's working?  If I'm naturally very good at a certain job, do I get paid less than somebody who does just as good a job as I do but puts huge inhuman amounts of effort into it?  More to the point, if I'm naturally good at a certain job and work hard at it, do I get paid just as much as somebody who's naturally mediocre at it and works just as hard as I do?

If so, you're encouraging me to hide my talent.  This is worse than "from each according to his ability": this is "from each according to his inability."  Instead of rewarding achievement, you're rewarding effort.  I predict such a system will in the end discourage hard work AND excellence.

If, on the other hand, you pay workers according to the goodness of their product, then you encourage goodness of product.  Whatever means a worker uses to better his product are fine -- talent and hard work are rewarded equally, so long as they produce equal results.  At that point, from the view of the employer, it comes down to "How valuable is this worker's product to me?"

By the way, committees are notoriously bad at making good decisions and at making efficient decisions.  Also, what prevents the committee from making decisions that are in their own best interest?  In other words, (a) how is a committee better than a "board of directors", and (b) how is it not worse?

I don't really ask you to guarantee that the committee is good.  My point is that if you can offer a way to encourage excellent people to make their excellence known in your system, then I'm much more likely to approve of it.

To me an ideal economic system would yield the greatest benefits to those who are both excellent and apply their abilities maximally.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2006, 12:40:57 AM »
troubador,

  "I took that post and sent it to a few people I know and they got a kick out of it too."

  Not too bad was it?

- Dionysios

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2006, 01:30:56 AM »
Erasmus,

  Did you actually say earlier that you endorsed exploitation?  I want to confirm as it seems implausible that you would have stated that.

cheesejof,

  I do concur with the truth you spoke of concerning the strength of society in ancient times.  Capitalism has promoted individualism which has made society WORSE ECONOMICALLY on the whole.

- Dionysios

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2006, 02:02:39 AM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
 Capitalism has promoted individualism which has made society WORSE ECONOMICALLY on the whole.

- Dionysios


Wait a minute. Isn't one of the arguements of socialists that capitalism somehow steals someone's soul and turns them into a slave working for a "big corporation"? Or that everything in capitalist america is unoriginal and everyone falls prey to propaganda from "the government?" Quite odd of you to suggest now that capitalism is bad because it promotes people doing what they want rather then what other people want them to do.


You're right, I really wish I lived in a communist/socialist dictatorship like Cuba. Then I wouldn't have to worry about doing what I wanted or living a life of any pleasure of my own other then the sweet release of death.


FOR THE GOVENMe....errm... PEOPLE!

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2006, 02:33:41 AM »
I am intereted to hear what Gustave 5436 has to say about unrestrained individualism as well, but I would say the society of corporations is in every way inferior to the society of the middle ages (which by the way would indeed be violent if you're talking about the crusades which were an early stage of colonialism).

  European capitalists promoting individualism have had to eat their own medicine as they have modernized the rest of the world, replacing their natives societies with individualism which has been disastrous for those traditional societies (economically as well as loss of their sacred traditions).  however as they have adopted individualism, they have applied this principle in freeing themselves from colonial governments, and those in the third world have often become political enemies of the colonialist powers.  This has increased the atomization of the world in general.  Individualsim has destroyed traditional protections of the poor and weak that were established in more ancient Christian times which socialist schemes are but the distant shadow of in more recent times.  

  The protestant reformation (and capitalism) being more successful in northern europe than southern catholic europe, for example,  has broken down the ancient traditional structures which protected the weak in the northern countries like england and so they had to forge new like the socialist ones as some kind of defense against wealthy jewish capitalists who have had less power in southern europe than in northern europe (in general) during the course of the last four or five hudred years, whichi shall call the reign of protestantism (especially since 1759) which ended with WW1, but only with respect to protestant faith as opposed to raw capitalism dominating world affairs.

- Dionysios

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2006, 04:58:55 AM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
Isn't one of the arguements of socialists that capitalism somehow steals someone's soul and turns them into a slave working for a "big corporation"?


Thanks to the welfare state you have an option not to work.

Quote from: "troubadour"
Or that everything in capitalist america is unoriginal and everyone falls prey to propaganda from "the government?" Quite odd of you to suggest now that capitalism is bad because it promotes people doing what they want rather then what other people want them to do.


Anarchist communists may make complaints about government propaganda, democratic socialist do not.

Quote from: "troubadour"
You're right, I really wish I lived in a communist/socialist dictatorship like Cuba. Then I wouldn't have to worry about doing what I wanted or living a life of any pleasure of my own other then the sweet release of death.


I would rather live in a democratic country than in a totalitarian one.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2006, 11:30:54 AM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
Did you actually say earlier that you endorsed exploitation?  I want to confirm as it seems implausible that you would have stated that.


It's conceivable to me that I said and meant that I supported exploitation in a sense that you use the word.  It's less likely to be the case, however, if by "exploit" you mean something other than "use".  Can you refer to the exact quote?

I endorse the purchase of a human being's labour by another human being.  I endorse the extraction of resources from the environment.  Also, I endorse the right of humans not to be enslaved, and I endorse the rationale behind sustainable extraction of resources.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2006, 02:13:58 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Quote from: "troubadour"
Isn't one of the arguements of socialists that capitalism somehow steals someone's soul and turns them into a slave working for a "big corporation"?


Thanks to the welfare state you have an option not to work.

Quote from: "troubadour"
Or that everything in capitalist america is unoriginal and everyone falls prey to propaganda from "the government?" Quite odd of you to suggest now that capitalism is bad because it promotes people doing what they want rather then what other people want them to do.


Anarchist communists may make complaints about government propaganda, democratic socialist do not.

Quote from: "troubadour"
You're right, I really wish I lived in a communist/socialist dictatorship like Cuba. Then I wouldn't have to worry about doing what I wanted or living a life of any pleasure of my own other then the sweet release of death.


I would rather live in a democratic country than in a totalitarian one.



It's good that you understand sarcasm.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2006, 03:16:03 AM »
As the original title of this post was arbitrarily selected by Cinlef, I wish to say that although I am closer to socialism of the two, I believe a third way is better, namely distributism.  The following links give some idea of this:

http://www.geocities.com/kevinjjonesy/distributism/

http://www.distributism.com/reviews.htm

  I have revised the title of this topic to reflect this.

- Dionysios

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2006, 04:44:24 PM »
The word arbitrary sems a bit harsh I was merely trying to reflect what the topic of posts were at the time.
Much as it pains me to agree with Dionysios I do agree with many of the pirncipals of ditributism. Things like co-ops especially co-op banks (or as we call them in Quebec caisse populaires) are things I support. However I cannot help feeling that many distributists underestimate the positive role goverment institutions could play in the economy.
For a brief outline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
An enraged
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2006, 04:27:13 AM »
Accidently Edited.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2006, 06:55:36 PM »
but early christian and catholic thought was very similiar to socialism...
orry about the spelling i realize its awful but i cant spell for beans

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #47 on: June 15, 2006, 08:22:04 AM »
In some respects yes it was see especially the Acts of the Apostles.
An intrigued
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2006, 09:06:10 AM »
Socialism is good in principle, but it requires a certain amount of hive mentailty, which can be good for production (broad physical activities work better if everyone feels they are working for themselves and their friends/family) however it stifles creativity, simply because creativity requires differences, and in a hive mentality differences are more frightening than anything else.  Also a doctor and a ditch digger may work equally as hard. but everyone can dig a ditch.

And on the comment about the sports personalities  earning many times more than a doctor, yet again there are a lot more people who can diagnose a flu than can throw the perfect pass, hit the ball 400 yards, put the ball in the net from 30 yards out, etc.

Capitilism drives creativity through plain and simple greed.

But of course Capitilism has the problem of being inherently unfair, there is also the problem with large companies, which are not specifically owned by any one person, and their employees (rightly) do everything they can to better their company. But since the company is owned by shareholders there is no single person who truley takes responsibility for the company, and mob mentality can broadly take over the shareholders.

Through the simple fact that humans are not perfect (which everyone can agree on) any form of governing will have its flaws, will have corruption, it is just a fight for limiting the chance of corruption, and, like it or not, it is harder to be corrupt in a democratic captilism than it is in a pure socialist state.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #49 on: June 16, 2006, 05:12:01 AM »
I had created this along with the 'Medieval Versus Modern' post to break down such a bulky subject into two different threads.  However, there is a lot of overlap, and I wanted to point out something pertinent to both that i had posted in the other thread.
  I am neither a capitalist nor a socialist, but I tend to agree with the arguments of socialists more as they have made competent critiques of capitalism, a system which I see having little or no value whatsoever.
 
  Moreover, I see a lot of truth in the system of the two catholic writers G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc which they called distributism (hence the title of this post).  They believed as I do that modern historians (including capitalist and socialist) have lied and created myths about the middle ages, and that the medieval peasant had freedom, ownership of his own land, and independence in the sense he was not dependent on utilities and so many other things as the proletarians of today are.  The peasant of the middle ages occupied a superior position to both the pre-Christian slave as well as the more recent colial era slaves or proletariats of today.  And the expansion of the Church and its beneficial influence in the late roman era and early middle ages is the principle factor responsible for the slaves of pagan times gradually progressing into serfs and eventually into peasants.  It is the historians of modernity who are completely ignorant of these historical truths and lie about these eras which they know nothing about.

  One of the main theses of distributism is that capitalism is leading to the revival of slavery, albeit in a more ruthless form than in times past.  And the effects of socialist laws on capitalist states is to bring into existence a third thing - a servile state.  This tendency can even be seen on a small scale in many sectors today where a service economy gradually replaces an industrial one and labor unions decline right alongside most peoples'  standard of living while the gap between rich and poor increases.  

  I have written more on this under the medieval thread, but I want to repeat here one verse I posted in that category:

  A proletariat is a peasant who has had his land stolen from him by a capitalist.

  A capitalist is a noble who has had his nobility stolen from him by greed.

- Dionysios

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #50 on: June 16, 2006, 05:57:01 AM »
Take away the notion of "equality" and we're left with capitalism. Equality is at the heart of this debate, yet hasn't been significantly addressed.
-ujb.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #51 on: June 16, 2006, 07:28:24 AM »
I do not believe in absolute equality, but never the less in widely distributed capital.  I believe nobles should be weak and peasants should be strong.  This is the course that was generally followed by Russia over the past thousand years, and capitalist Britain (which became essentially an oligarchy with a weak king) has followed the opposite.

  I admit strong kings can be good or bad (Ivan was a much better king than he has been portrayed by western propaganda, and this applies to Russian history generally).   But as to kings, I believe a theocracy in which the spiritual authority is superior to the governing power is the one thing superior.  As a testimony to this, King Constantine transformed the malignant and faltering Roman empire into a much more benign kingdom which lasted more than a thousand years.  

- Dionysios

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #52 on: June 16, 2006, 07:34:27 AM »
UJB,
  I must confess that I believe in the efficacy of hierarchy generally (but not the transitory system of capitalism which leads downwards to the more stable system of slavery.
 
  Politically speaking, I do not believe in democracy, nor do I believe it is possible.  I have said before that the fact that masses of people believe in democracy is an indication of how gullible they are.

  However, I do not want to stray too far from the topic of economic systems.  A focus on 'equality' should remain relevant to the topic.  

- Dionysios

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #53 on: June 16, 2006, 05:10:35 PM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
UJB,
  I must confess that I believe in the efficacy of hierarchy generally (but not the transitory system of capitalism which leads downwards to the more stable system of slavery.
 
  Politically speaking, I do not believe in democracy, nor do I believe it is possible.  I have said before that the fact that masses of people believe in democracy is an indication of how gullible they are.

  However, I do not want to stray too far from the topic of economic systems.  A focus on 'equality' should remain relevant to the topic.  

- Dionysios

To quote Chesterton on the equality of man Dionysios.
The weak point in the whole of Carlyle's case for aristocracy lies, indeed, in his most celebrated phrase. Carlyle said that men were mostly fools. Christianity, with a surer and more reverent realism, says that they are all fools. This doctrine is sometimes called the doctrine of original sin. It may also be described as the doctrine of the equality of men. But the essential point of it is merely this, that whatever primary and far-reaching moral dangers affect any man, affect all men. All men can be criminals, if tempted; all men can be heroes, if inspired. And this doctrine does away altogether with Carlyle's pathetic belief (or any one else's pathetic belief) in "the wise few." There are no wise few. Every aristocracy that has ever existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob.

    * Chapter XII "Paganism and Mr. Lowes Dickinson"
See my main disagreement with your argument about democracy is not that the masses arent guillible and ignorant it's that a king or aristoracy are just as likely to be guillible and ignorant.
An enraged
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #54 on: June 17, 2006, 07:53:33 AM »
I do have a few of Chesterton's books as I found out about him by way of Hilaire Belloc (from whom I have gotten much more from his historical work than from Chesterton's philosophy).  I do agree with Chesterton's critique of capitalism, but my main benefit with both of these writers lies in their negative critiques of modern systems - the fact that they are anti-capitalist as well as anti-socialist.  As far as agreement on a positive system, that could be a different story, but these two writers are among the very best of catholic writers that I have ever come across.  Even Belloc's book on muslims written nearly eighty years ago is far more balanced than some of the Bush influenced propaganda coming from some (non-thinking) right wing catholics today.  

  Before I disavow Chesterton on that point you quoted, I would want to know exactly what it was this Carlyle believed against whom Chesterton protested so much.  Carlyke and myself can be very different as in all probability (considering they were englishmen of a hundred years ago), this Carlyle was a proponent of the British empire who adhered to some form of social darwinism and rule by a few.  If that is indeed the case, then he could use some criticism from Chesterton.

  Do I agree absolutely on every point Chesterton made about rule by a few?  Well, I do tend to concur with what he said about original sin and that in this sense all men are guilty before God, but I am of the understanding that Chesterton was some what of a medievalist.  This was definitely the opinion of the socialist George Bernard Shaw, one of Chesterton's and Belloc's great rivals.  This is also very much clear from their writings.

  As Chesterton and Belloc were admirers of the middle ages, I am of the opinion that they also tend to admire the forms of government that existed during those times more than they do modern governments such as the British or american empires including how such empires have sometimes defined "equality."

  As for myself, I believe that democracy is an example of the worst kind of governments that exist at the end of time (prior to the restitution of an apocalypse) when disorder and falsehood become normal while order and truth are withdrawn and hidden.  The fact that all man have original sin is not a justification for anarchy.

  Certain men do have certain traits that enable them to govern better than others, while others deal with spiritual things, or woodcarving or money or whatever livelihood better than others, et cetera.

  The caste system in India, for example, has a justifiable basis.  I believe that to trap someone in a caste solely because they were born into it, particularly when they naturally perform better in another is not the way the caste system was founded.  And to the extent that happens, it is a modern deviation from good tradition.  The right thing is to correct such wrongs by sensibly restoring the system to its original purity.  I do believe that to abolish it is to continue the corruption that has crept into the system and the downward spiral to the next lower step, and such anarchy would further increase the gap between rich and poor.  If you CANNOT see or comprehend that ahead of time before it happens, it could be an indication that you, for example, might not necessarily be cut out for political analysis.

  No offense, but has not Gustave 5436 mentioned to you on a previous occasion that he really needs to talk to someone who knows what they are talking about?

- Dionysios

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #55 on: August 06, 2006, 06:01:46 PM »
Quote from: "Gustave5436"
social democracy is a welfare state; capitalist. Not socialism.

I don't know about Communism, but the form of socialism I am in favor is more individualist (opposite of collectivism) than capitalism is.

Sweden isn't socialist either.  They compensate for wealth imbalance with huge tax rates (which only affect you if you make too much money... say, 150 thousand a year?  Seriously that is too much).  A capitalist solution to a problem that can only be fixed with socialism.

The thing about socialism is, very little is state-run.  The state just requires that everyone is payed fair;  pay works by, you do more work, youy get more pay.  You do no work, (unless you are diabled and can't work.  Then society has to pay for you to not work) you get no pay.

As I have said, I am not a collectivist communist.  You are more like such a person than I am, merely for supporting capitalism, which takes away our personalities and makes us drones of the rich, toiling away in their factories, while they siphon off most of the profits of our work.

I don't care how nature works.  In nature, our closes relatives, chimpanzees, kill each other for no reason.  We are human; we are above nature.  We can do whatever we want.

And yes there is survival of the fittest in nature, but in capitalism, there is no way toget rich even if you are fit to do so.  Plus, survival of the fittest is a genetic thing, not luck on whether you are born rich or poor.


You people dont realize that no government or economic system is perfect.You all have been going at it for quite some time as if socialism would end all social problems the day it is implemented and as if capitlaism is the perfect system as well.Capitalism looks good on paper.But when you have cities with kids that are barefoot walking down the street with clothes that are 2 sizes smaller than what they should be,and you have the tree lined streets where mega corp execs sleep in mattresses stuffed with 100$ bills,you have to wonder.Socialism looks good on papaer,but when every civil liberty is completly obliterated so the party can weed out the "capitalist pigs",you have to wonder.You just have to....