Communism vs. Christianity

[Jaime]

....... The very rich have too many loop holes, and the middle class carries the load.

I apologize for the silly assertion I made here about the middle class carrying the tax load. I guess emotionally I was hoping it were true. Intellectually, though I know it not to be true per another thread started by Admin:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=19879.0

[Mere Nick]

I'd rather force people . . .

I'd rather treat people the way I want to be treated.

[Mr. J]

Does nobody remember that there was once no welfare system in the US?  That individual people donated much more to the needy than goes to the needy through force of taxation?

Churches were the receivers of donations and and distributors of relief.  It was a wonderful system.  Nobody starved, no families were multi-generations welfare bums.

The problem with that system is that there was no way to wield power from it.  A socialist/communist system needed to be implemented so power and wealth could be drawn from a welfare system.  Keeping people down, keeping workers down to pay extravagant taxes, holding votes hostage.  My, my.  All of a sudden everything a totalitarian government cold want!  Money!  Power!  Hostage Votes!

What the young man asks for, he nearly has.  A decrepit system.

You ask for communism?  That shows the level of your naivety.  The very design of theoretical communism was a farce.  Nobody ever considered there was such a system that would work.  It was always purely a fairytale to get uneducated people to believe in long enough to get total power over them before they realized they'd been sold a bill of goods.  If you believe communism is even a possibility, you are of the uneducated.  Get some education, understand how power and control is grasped by the political elite of the world.  Communism is a strategy, not a form of government.  Until you understand that, you understand nothing.

If you are a Christian and have read Judges and Kings, you understand it was not God's intent that man have any government.

If you are an avid student of government, you will understand that the US is NOT a democracy.  If you don't understand why the US was never formed to be a democracy, then before running long conversations on a forum, you need to get yourself educated.  In a democracy, people have NO rights.  That is why our government wants democracies around the world and not republics.  Those democratic countries will never achieve any power.  Only in a republic is there a possibility of rights.

You want a form of totalitarianism that "forces" people.  Only two kinds of people want a communistic state.  The power hungry and greed crazed politicians who drool of the possibilities when a people are so stupid as to accept communism, and the lazy and morally corrupt who think they won't have to work, someone else will pay their way.  Be it the rich greedy, or the poor greedy, only the greedy and morally corrupt desire communism.

It is an abomination to rob from Peter to pay Paul.  Paul needs to work for what he needs, or go the the Church Peter willingly donates to for temporary assistance.

That is how this country ran for many decades, over a century.  A time when this country was building and growing and had moral fiber.  Now the condition of the nation's moral fiber (and education) is evident when a young, uneducated, person suggests that freedom be thrown to the pigs, greed replace patriotism, the willing horses be whipped, the lazy profit, the politicians become astronomically rich.  You don't even know you're morally corrupt.  Or maybe you do?

[Brian Kelley]

Does nobody remember that there was once no welfare system in the US?  That individual people donated much more to the needy than goes to the needy through force of taxation?

Churches were the receivers of donations and and distributors of relief.  It was a wonderful system.  Nobody starved, no families were multi-generations welfare bums.

The problem with that system is that there was no way to wield power from it.  A socialist/communist system needed to be implemented so power and wealth could be drawn from a welfare system.  Keeping people down, keeping workers down to pay extravagant taxes, holding votes hostage.  My, my.  All of a sudden everything a totalitarian government cold want!  Money!  Power!  Hostage Votes!

What the young man asks for, he nearly has.  A decrepit system.

You ask for communism?  That shows the level of your naivety.  The very design of theoretical communism was a farce.  Nobody ever considered there was such a system that would work.  It was always purely a fairytale to get uneducated people to believe in long enough to get total power over them before they realized they'd been sold a bill of goods.  If you believe communism is even a possibility, you are of the uneducated.  Get some education, understand how power and control is grasped by the political elite of the world.  Communism is a strategy, not a form of government.  Until you understand that, you understand nothing.

If you are a Christian and have read Judges and Kings, you understand it was not God's intent that man have any government.

If you are an avid student of government, you will understand that the US is NOT a democracy.  If you don't understand why the US was never formed to be a democracy, then before running long conversations on a forum, you need to get yourself educated.  In a democracy, people have NO rights.  That is why our government wants democracies around the world and not republics.  Those democratic countries will never achieve any power.  Only in a republic is there a possibility of rights.

You want a form of totalitarianism that "forces" people.  Only two kinds of people want a communistic state.  The power hungry and greed crazed politicians who drool of the possibilities when a people are so stupid as to accept communism, and the lazy and morally corrupt who think they won't have to work, someone else will pay their way.  Be it the rich greedy, or the poor greedy, only the greedy and morally corrupt desire communism.

It is an abomination to rob from Peter to pay Paul.  Paul needs to work for what he needs, or go the the Church Peter willingly donates to for temporary assistance.

That is how this country ran for many decades, over a century.  A time when this country was building and growing and had moral fiber.  Now the condition of the nation's moral fiber (and education) is evident when a young, uneducated, person suggests that freedom be thrown to the pigs, greed replace patriotism, the willing horses be whipped, the lazy profit, the politicians become astronomically rich.  You don't even know you're morally corrupt.  Or maybe you do?

Wow, we go from me wanting to make sure the poor get help (because the church doesn't donate enough), to me asking for totalitarianism.
I also never said that communism was a form of government...
As for "robbing" Peter to pay Paul, that's a common catchphrase among those who desperately want to keep their tax money.  How about robbing Peter to make roads so both Peter and Paul can travel?  How about robbing Peter to make sure the nation Peter lives in has a decent defense?  How about robbing Peter to make it so that the president of Peter's country doesn't need to have another full-time job?  Are these all horrible?  By your logic, it would be.
Give in to chaos so that you get to keep a bit more money.  How about we do away with workplace regulations and allow factories to exist again without proper facilities?  Government is so horrible right?  After all, it's all about money and profit!  That's all that should ever matter, right?  We don't need to take care of people so long as taxes don't need to be paid!  I mean, if you're for getting rid of taxes which pay for programs to help the poor, why not get rid of all of them?
I suppose making sure the poor can eat and get medical attention is more important to me than the space program. Sorry if that makes me morally corrupt...

[Mr. J]

OK, since this is a Christian forum, perhaps you can show us Biblically how God's people are to handle the situation of the poor.

[Brian Kelley]

"All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.  Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  'For I was hungry, and you gave Me {something} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me {something} to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'  Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You {something} to drink?  'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?  'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'  The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'  Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me {nothing} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'  Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'  Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'  These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." - Matthew 25:32-46

[Jimbob]

I'd rather force people . . .

I'd rather treat people the way I want to be treated.

Even Jesus doesn't force people.

[Mr. J]

"All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.  Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  'For I was hungry, and you gave Me {something} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me {something} to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'  Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You {something} to drink?  'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?  'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'  The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'  Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me {nothing} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'  Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'  Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'  These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." - Matthew 25:32-46

That's a wonderful scripture you've quoted.  I don't see how it relates your suggestion that you force our nation into communism.  If anything, the scripture shows the freedom of choice and the consequences.  I hope this means you are seeing the light, otherwise I'd have to assume you also are attempting to save everyone by forcing them through communism to "give?"

Since you and I and everyone knows salvation does not work via force, then how about dropping the communism thing as a very bad idea and moving on?

[Jaime]

"All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.  Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  'For I was hungry, and you gave Me {something} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me {something} to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'  Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You {something} to drink?  'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?  'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'  The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'  Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me {nothing} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'  Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'  Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'  These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." - Matthew 25:32-46

That's a wonderful scripture you've quoted.  I don't see how it relates your suggestion that you force our nation into communism.  If anything, the scripture shows the freedom of choice and the consequences.  I hope this means you are seeing the light, otherwise I'd have to assume you also are attempting to save everyone by forcing them through communism to "give?"

Since you and I and everyone knows salvation does not work via force, then how about dropping the communism thing as a very bad idea and moving on?

Yeah, I agree Brian. Also you may already be on some evil government watch lists for being a subversive.

[Brian Kelley]

"All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.  Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  'For I was hungry, and you gave Me {something} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me {something} to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'  Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You {something} to drink?  'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?  'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'  The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'  Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me {nothing} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'  Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'  Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'  These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." - Matthew 25:32-46

That's a wonderful scripture you've quoted.  I don't see how it relates your suggestion that you force our nation into communism.  If anything, the scripture shows the freedom of choice and the consequences.  I hope this means you are seeing the light, otherwise I'd have to assume you also are attempting to save everyone by forcing them through communism to "give?"

Since you and I and everyone knows salvation does not work via force, then how about dropping the communism thing as a very bad idea and moving on?

You asked me specifically to quote scripture regarding how God's people should handle the situation with the poor.  I did that.  I didn't relate it to anything.
I didn't say I wanted to force people into communism.  I was initially trying to find whether the people in the first church, in the book of Acts, lived similarly to the way communism (an economic theory, not a governmental system) was theoretically supposed to work.  It seemed to me that they did.  However, people are so afraid of the word "communism" that they didn't even consider what I was saying, I don't think.  Maybe I'm wrong.
Bottom line, if you would rather see people die than legislate taxation for helping the poor, that's your right (protected by the military which is paid by those same taxes).  It's my right to have more compassion than that.

[admin]

Brian,

I'd rather (AND DO) help the poor by my own ways which includes money and other things. I think that's better than the government doing it because most of that money goes to pay welfare agents or fund pet projects that make little or no difference.

And there is a principle that says giving a man a fish only keeps him needing the to ask for more fish instead of being able to get it for himself. I resent and completely disagree with you suggesting that I am not compassionate about the poor because I don't want the government to take a large chunk of the money that work hard for. Do you actually trust the government to make good use of those funds? The welfare system is a joke. Private citizens could do far better. And on top of that, the "poor" in America are wildly wealthy compared to most of the world. Also, consider reading this letter that Abraham Lincoln wrote to his brother.

[Brian Kelley]

The welfare system as we know it doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that no system will work.

How do we take care of people who really need it if enough private citizens don't voluntarily donate?  That's all I want to know.

[Jaime]

The welfare system as we know it doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that no system will work.

How do we take care of people who really need it if enough private citizens don't voluntarily donate?  That's all I want to know.

Ask the tsunami victims in Indonesia where they would be without AMERICAN help, mostly from private sources, too.

Americans are good, generous people. Especially and even without government forcing them to be. Can we do better? probably so. Will the solution be better with more government involvement? I say probably not.

[Brian Kelley]

Okay... I see I'm not getting anywhere with my questions.  Fair enough.  Nice discussion regardless, everyone.

[Jaime]

Okay... I see I'm not getting anywhere with my questions.  Fair enough.  Nice discussion regardless, everyone.

Did I not address your question about what if enough private citizens don't donate? I have all the faith in the world in the generosity of our private citizens. Sorry if a direct answer is not what you are looking for.

[Brian Kelley]

Okay... I see I'm not getting anywhere with my questions.  Fair enough.  Nice discussion regardless, everyone.

Did I not address your question about what if enough private citizens don't donate? I have all the faith in the world in the generosity of our private citizens. Sorry if a direct answer is not what you are looking for.

I was looking for a direct answer in a hypothetical situation.  The hypothetical situation I put forward is that there aren't enough private citizens donating or the private citizens who donate aren't donating enough to take care of the needs of the poor.  I'm asking a question based on that hypothetical situation.  Nobody is willing to even consider that situation in giving me an answer.

[Bon Voyage]

The welfare system as we know it doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that no system will work.

How do we take care of people who really need it if enough private citizens don't voluntarily donate?  That's all I want to know.

How do you motivate folks when they know that Uncle Sam is gonna do it anyway?

[Brian Kelley]

The welfare system as we know it doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that no system will work.

How do we take care of people who really need it if enough private citizens don't voluntarily donate?  That's all I want to know.

How do you motivate folks when they know that Uncle Sam is gonna do it anyway?

Perhaps we could preach the gospel.  Gary, do you have an answer to my question.  This is what is bothering me about the issue, and nobody has been able to answer it without simply posing a counter question.

[Mere Nick]

The welfare system as we know it doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that no system will work.

How do we take care of people who really need it if enough private citizens don't voluntarily donate?  That's all I want to know.

How do you motivate folks when they know that Uncle Sam is gonna do it anyway?

Perhaps we could preach the gospel.  Gary, do you have an answer to my question.  This is what is bothering me about the issue, and nobody has been able to answer it without simply posing a counter question.

Outside of using force as you advocate, we will be showing the kind of people that we really are instead of what we will do because there's a gun to our head.

[Jaime]

Okay... I see I'm not getting anywhere with my questions.  Fair enough.  Nice discussion regardless, everyone.

Did I not address your question about what if enough private citizens don't donate? I have all the faith in the world in the generosity of our private citizens. Sorry if a direct answer is not what you are looking for.

I was looking for a direct answer in a hypothetical situation.  The hypothetical situation I put forward is that there aren't enough private citizens donating or the private citizens who donate aren't donating enough to take care of the needs of the poor.  I'm asking a question based on that hypothetical situation.  Nobody is willing to even consider that situation in giving me an answer.

Well to answer your question, I would have to know what you consider enough? I contend private citizens are being rather generous especially to their church coffers. It seems that church's these days are your problem and not stingy private citizens. Churches are more interested in building monumental buildings and gathering up high paid pastors for expensive church programs, rather than funnelling enough of the more than adequate funds collected to the poor.

Summary, it's not the private citizen' generousity, it's the church's priorities.

Sorry for being snippy with you in my previous post. I really thought I answered your question before. But maybe this time I hit what you are looking for.

The church's have the where-with-all, the question is do they have the will.

BTW, answering a question with a question is not at all unusual on this board.

[Dunamite]

Capitalism, like pure (never seen) communism is most likely neutral, not unChristian.  Capitalists, like Communists are often unChristian.  See the difference?

Capitalism is an economics system and should not be confused with democracy.

Capitalism is based on greed. This is a value judgment, but it is a fair judgment based on history and the ideals which capitalism upholds.

In simplest terms capitalism involves the accumulation of capital. Capital is used to control the means of production and the produce more capital. Competition in the beginning serves to make capitalism efficient, but as competitors are forced out of business or are gobbled up capital falls into fewer and fewer hands and monopoly develops.

The idea behind capitalism is the accumulation of personal wealth which is the essence of greed. Work is a commodity like anything else. In order to be profitable labor costs are to be kept as low as possible. Workers have historically suffered under capitalism. The excesses of the industrial revolution spawned communism and socialism. They reform of labor practices has been paved with the blood of workers in every country. People are expendable in capitalism. They are to be used up and replaced in the same way other resources are used. The environment and workers are casualties of unchecked capitalism.

The police and the state have traditionally sided with the robber barons of the past. Now a minimum wage, pensions, and safe working conditions are commonplace but once they were non-existent.

Communism as formulated by Marx and Engels is based on three principles: the class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the withering of the state. All struggle in society in Marx's scheme of things is based on class struggle in which the bourgeoisie exploit the workers (proletariat). The works must seize control of the means of production and therefore gain control over their own labor. This is by necessity violent since the bourgeoisie will not surrender control voluntarily. This means revolution. The result will be the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat or a worker state. Through time workers will create a state where they control the means of production and all society will benefit. At this point the state will begin to wither.

I am not a communist, but I can see its appeal to the downtrodden. In practice communist states have been no better than their capitalist predecessors. Many people like to trot out the excesses of Stalinism to critique communism. Few people of these people recognize the abuses that occurred under czarism or in industrial Europe. They point to the lack of civil rights in China as just cause for condemning communism. However, truthfully China has a long history of abusing civil rights. It comes from any form of despotism which by definition lacks accountability.

I am a a critic of capitalism because I live in a capitalist society. I witness the abuses first hand and therefore consider it to be my right and responsibility to call them as I see them. I can only speak of communism as an outsider.

Capitalism is far from neutral. To say so is to ignore the nature of capitalism which is to make as much money as possible by giving as little as possible to the workers and to protection the environment. It is all about maximizing profits to benefit a small percentage of the populace.

A common assumption that is made is that capitalists deserve the money they make which they have earned by hard work and innovation. Sometimes this is the case, but often or not it is a false assumption. It also assumes that the playing field is level and that these people have no competitive advantage. This is usually not the case.

The playing field has never been equal. Laws reward greed, protect property and generally serve to keep the poor in their place. You can't create wealth. This is a misnomer. What you merely succeed in doing is to redistribute it by taking from some to give to others. You can't have a wealthy class without creating a poor class. The wealthier they become the poorer others become. The opposite of this is where everyone has the same thing which is distasteful to capitalists because it takes away their right to exploit the weak and to enrich themselves.

Blessings,
Dunamite

[Dunamite]

The bottom line is, do you trust the government to take all your money and decide what's done with it or would you rather get to make your own decisions. The church example is hardly justification for communism because the government is not the church.

You can never know who will be in charge next in terms of a government and what they will want to do. Therefore, I think it makes sense to keep the government's hands out of the people's pockets and the power in the hands of the people. America was founded by people who were tired of an England king taking their income and having too much power.

So the United States was founded on people choosing their leaders, being free to live their lives and free to earn as much or as little as they wanted AND to decide how they spend it. I say if you want something different, there are plenty of choices out there. Most of America's internal critics wouldn't dream of leaving. I think that's telling.

I hope we never give up our freedoms. I'll fight for mine. I can't believe we are even discussing this. I bet it government control in terms of our money were forced on us....most of those who are acting like it wouldn't be a big deal would realize just how serious and terrible it would be...and would probably be ready to fight it.

Your comment begins and ends with false assumptions. You assume that the money is deserved. You assume that you are free. Neither of these things can be assumed.

The United states was founded by intellectuals and men of privilege. It was based on stealing land from the aboriginal people and marginalizing them. This was the beginning of exploiting others. It also involved in imperialist expansion and dogma such as manifest destiny.

American history is full of battles between to advantaged and the disadvantaged whether it was range wars between the ranchers and the farmers or the robber barons and police barricades attacking workers on strike for a fair wage.

The government has a role to play. Capitalism unchecked creates ghettos and shanty towns not prosperous family neighborhoods. Remember the company towns of the past? People need to benefit from their labor or their is not hope and hope breeds anger and resentment. Many of the racial problems of the past are socioeconomic in nature.

Keeping people on the bottom may seem desirable to some, but it has proven to be too costly for society. When we give a helping hand to others everybody wins. Their are fewer problems and lives are not wasted. Genius knows no racial or economic bounds. If we educate the poor they give back to society, if we keep them down then we end up wasting lives and spend more in fighting crime and disease.

Capitalism has never been a champion of the poor. Capitalists will not reform without being obligated to. The exception to this was Henry Ford who was a genius in more ways than one. He paid his workers an outrageous wage at the time. Several time what other capitalists were paying. He was a laughing stock for a long time. His logic was that he wanted to create a market for his vehicles and the middle class was born.

Now the middle class is shrinking. Government and corporations have played a big part in this. Corporate taxes have shrunk with handouts to corporations in the form of tax breaks. Government has grown, but programs for the poor have shrunk. Tax revenue is re-routed to corporations with huge government contracts and programs that only serve to help corporations. Left out of all of this is the people and that is who government is supposed to be for, the people. Trickle down economics is a failure as the gap between in the rich and poor is at an all time high.

America is facing an economic crisis. Jobs going off shore are the least of our problems. Should the dollar cease to be the economic trade standard America face a debt crisis of unheard of proportions. The huge debt and balance of payments deficit will come back to roost. America does not have to worry about China's military might. They hold enough economic clout that they can cause more damage than bombs. A few months back a Chinese official traveled to Washington to tell Bush to jump in the lake when the administration tried to get them to re-evaluate the yuan upwards. He told Bush hands off and he threatened to turn the U.S. into a banana republic if they persisted.

Logic tells us that it isn't in China's best interest to sink the U.S. but that may not always be the case. They are already diversifying and using Euros as well as dollars for trade. Venezuela and Iran also trade in Euros. Iran is more of an economic threat that a military one. If the U.S. or by proxy Israel attacks Iran it will be for economic as well as political reasons.

Bush is playing a game of brinkmanship with Iran because he has boxed himself in with his expensive war in Iraq and weak economic policies. Wars are about money. They are about protecting the interests of the wealthy, creating and protecting their markets and redistributing wealth, making poor nations poorer and wealthy nations wealthier.

Blessings,
Dunamite

[Jimbob]

Dunamite, I don't have the time nor the inclination to go through you post point by point and take on the several things with which I disagree.  I will say that I did not confuse democracy and capitalism, though I think you are assuming too much where greed is concerned.  Greed certainly grows well in the soil of capitalism, but to paint with such a broad brush that it always leads to capitalism, or worse, that it always has greed at its foundation is just not so, and would have to assume a moral and ethical vacuum.  That is why I said it is generally neutral.  Those with a morality and ethic that values good for their neighbor, stewardship to God, and a condemnation of greed will find that a capitalistic economy does not demand them to compromise those values.  Those given to greed and exploitation of man and resources will, unfortunately, also find that it will not demand of them a conscience.

[Dunamite]

Dunamite, I don't have the time nor the inclination to go through you post point by point and take on the several things with which I disagree.  I will say that I did not confuse democracy and capitalism, though I think you are assuming too much where greed is concerned.  Greed certainly grows well in the soil of capitalism, but to paint with such a broad brush that it always leads to capitalism, or worse, that it always has greed at its foundation is just not so, and would have to assume a moral and ethical vacuum.  That is why I said it is generally neutral.  Those with a morality and ethic that values good for their neighbor, stewardship to God, and a condemnation of greed will find that a capitalistic economy does not demand them to compromise those values.  Those given to greed and exploitation of man and resources will, unfortunately, also find that it will not demand of them a conscience.

Greed does not lead to capitalism. Greed flourishes in capitalism. Capitalism is about the accumulation of personal wealth. Making profit and acquiring wealth is its reason for being. Greed is selfish desire. Capitalism is selfish because it focuses on the individual and not the community or society in general. It is certainly desirable for capitalists to acquire wealth.

I am not just playing at semantics. All of history bears out my assertion. Despite centuries of western capitalism poverty still exists. The gap between rich and poor has grown. We have outrageous wealth and outrageous poverty globally. Capitalism is exploitive and predatory. Capitalism knows no boundaries. It seeks the lowest common denominator. As labor becomes expensive in one country it moves to another country. What is common to the experience of all people under capitalism is that jobs will go to those who are prepared to work for less.

Capitalism is an outgrowth of feudalism in Europe in which workers were bound to the land and were property of the of lord of the manor. They had few rights. They could not vote and had little control of their own labor. They worked hard and died young. There is a continuum from now to the past in which rights were fought for and given gradually and grudgingly. Lots of blood was shed. Capitalism was unchecked until governments stepped in. Pensions and better working conditions were not given by companies, but fought for by workers and legislated only after the government saw their folly in propping up robber barons.

I have a degree in political science I have made a lifetime study of these things. I am willing to debate them if you wish. But history is on my side. We can go back as far as you want, but you will not find much support for capitalism voluntarily bettering the lives of workers.

I am not ignoring the work of industrialists turned philanthropists, but they turned to philanthropy once their position was assured and I am sure that the Carnegies of the world had good reason to try to redeem themselves in the eyes of the world or perhaps just for their own conscience.

No history is told without bias. The bias of many people here is obvious, as is mine. I cannot rewrite history, but I refuse to gloss over the injustices of the past simply to salve the conscience of people who live the good life in our materialist consumer based society while ignoring the sweatshops and atrocious working conditions that give us cheap goods from abroad.

Blessings,
dunamite

[Jimbob]

I think your interpreting the facts through your foregone conclusions.

[Bon Voyage]

The problems with capitalism and soylent green are one and the same.  IT'S PEOPLE!

[Mere Nick]

George Gilder was right when he said "Greed is an appetite for unneeded and unearned wealth and power.  The truly greedy seek comfort and security first.  They seek goods and clout they have not earned.  Because the best and safest way to gain unearned pay is to get the state to take it from others, greed leads, as by an invisible hand, toward ever more government action - to socialism, not capitalism."

What makes free market capitalism so wonderful?  It is an aristocracy of merit.  To prosper, you must serve.

[Brian Kelley]

George Gilder was right when he said "Greed is an appetite for unneeded and unearned wealth and power.  The truly greedy seek comfort and security first.  They seek goods and clout they have not earned.  Because the best and safest way to gain unearned pay is to get the state to take it from others, greed leads, as by an invisible hand, toward ever more government action - to socialism, not capitalism."

What makes free market capitalism so wonderful?  It is an aristocracy of merit.  To prosper, you must serve.

I don't see ths as being true at all.  To prosper, you must make lucky investment choices.  Investment has no service in it whatsoever.  In fact, one of the main communist principles is a Biblical one:  If you don't work, you don't eat.  That sounds like exactly what you're looking for...

[Jimbob]

Just curious about your assumption, Brian.  Why would the investments only be lucky ones?  Why not educated and wise ones? 

--------------------------------

To the thread in general, it seems that there has been a poor assumption on the part of some that exploitation of the poor is worse in free market societies.  History does not show this.  Remember the glory days of Marxist-Leninist socialism?  Exploitation out the wazoo.  Remember Mao?  Ditto. 

The problem, as Gary eloquently put it, is people.  And people bent on power at the cost of their neighbor will bend any system you dump them in to their exploits.  A free enterprise system based on individual freedom and property ownership may not be perfect, but show me one alternative that's managed to avoid all pitfalls of power and greed, and I'll show you a fantasy world.

[Brian Kelley]

Just curious about your assumption, Brian.  Why would the investments only be lucky ones?  Why not educated and wise ones? 

Even an educated guess can be wrong.  All investments have a luck factor.  Even so, it's still not an issue of service when one invests.  That was my point.

[Jimbob]

Just curious about your assumption, Brian.  Why would the investments only be lucky ones?  Why not educated and wise ones? 

Even an educated guess can be wrong.  All investments have a luck factor.  Even so, it's still not an issue of service when one invests.  That was my point.

How is it not an issue of service?  You're providing your hard-earned dollars to a company to be used as capital so that they can then work hard and produce a profit that may come back as a return to you.  You've provided the service of capital to one who needed it, and you've both gained. 

[Brian Kelley]

Just curious about your assumption, Brian.  Why would the investments only be lucky ones?  Why not educated and wise ones? 

Even an educated guess can be wrong.  All investments have a luck factor.  Even so, it's still not an issue of service when one invests.  That was my point.

How is it not an issue of service?  You're providing your hard-earned dollars to a company to be used as capital so that they can then work hard and produce a profit that may come back as a return to you.  You've provided the service of capital to one who needed it, and you've both gained. 

It would be nice if it was all based on hard work.  It's more likely based on timing and luck.  At some point it stops being hard work and starts being greed and taking advantage of others (who may be putting in hard work).  How often have Wal-Mart stores overpowered people who wanted to start their own stores by taking advantage of their situations?  The hard work stopped at some point and the monster that is Wal-Mart today was born and has been making sure people have to work for them instead of starting their own small stores because they can't keep up with the huge distribution centers and other deals that the Waltons can make.  Are you seriously in the belief that by investing in Wal-Mart you're providing a service to the company that they need, and this is a good thing?  You think that the average investor does so because he's providing a service?  Be truthful.

[Jimbob]

Well, you might want to edit that post.  The "be truthful" could be taken offensively, you know.  You don't want to go there.

Anywho, I think it's interesting that you bring up WalMart.  Is it the only company that exists, and because some of its actions have been bad, therefore all companies and all investors and all its workers are bad?  Seems that's what your saying, but that's broad-brushing to an extreme.  Why the seeming all-or-nothing view?

[Brian Kelley]

First, be truthful wasn't meant to be offensive.  If I have offended you, I apologize.  I meant only that you (and anyone else who posts) should make sure you're truthful with yourself before posting.

As for Wal-Mart, that was just an example.  I could give many examples of many companies.  Did you not like my example?  I could say Microsoft, Apple, GMC, Time-Warner, or even WorldCom instead if you wish.

[Bon Voyage]

First, be truthful wasn't meant to be offensive.  If I have offended you, I apologize.  I meant only that you (and anyone else who posts) should make sure you're truthful with yourself before posting.

As for Wal-Mart, that was just an example.  I could give many examples of many companies.  Did you not like my example?  I could say Microsoft, Apple, GMC, Time-Warner, or even WorldCom instead if you wish.

Do you own a car or buy clothes or cd's or computers, etc.  If so, are you enabling greed?