Communism proffers a communal possession, such that everyone has enough.
It invariably creates exactly the opposite of what it posits. (Examples are legion, but one could cite Stalin, Mao, the Ceausescus, Kim Jong-Il, etc., and think of the famines and shortages that occurred during their administrations.) Instead of everyone owning a portion of the polity, it is invariably one man who owns the entire country, brooking no rivals.
Capitalism more closely resembles the competitive rivalry of nature itself, and may thus be more ecologically sustainable.
(Note: the above "photograph" of Kim Jong-Il may or may not be an accurate image. The leader of North Korea has probably been dead for five or more years. Heights of the various doubles differ, and no one is certain. Kim Jong-Il's dad has been dead for a decade or more, but is the putative leader of North Korea for eternity.)
10 comments:
Communism creates a paradox.
Democracy creates a pair o' Docs.
I'll have the latter, please.
medium-well.
With French Fries and a side of Ranch Dressing.
Capitalism was a transitional societal form, suited to the rapid expansion and growth of industrialization and population. Now that man is rapidly approaching and overtaking the holding-capacity of the earth, it no longer is going to work. As we heedlessly reproduce and consume, capitalism posits an unrelenting advance.
Communism was more or less based on the same expansion model, though with much less efficiency.
What's next?
you could at least warn us when you post such photos. OMG....ICK!
But obviously, Photoshopped.
WW
Well, Curtis, there ought to be some basic laws against the destruction of the wilderness. We have some minor laws against littering, and against poisoning of rivers, and air quality laws. I think those are clearly laid out already in Adam Smith.
The notion of the commons is already much more clearly enunciated in Adam Smith, who is a lot better on almost every topic than Marx, although he is much less read.
Locke, too, is better than Marx on almost every topic. He also argues against despoliation of nature.
Luther, too, argues that we must be stewards of the gift of earth. He says that even on judgement day it is important to plant apple trees, and to take care of the world.
There is a growing tradition in Christian thought that heaven will be right here on earth, not in some other world, so we had better take care of this world, not just for our children's sake, but for our own sake, later on.
I think there are resources within Christianity that can move humanity toward a strong eco-theological set of principles.
Joseph Sittler's books (he was a Lutheran jazz enthusiast, who knew all the Beats in NYC in the 50s), are getting reprinted, for instance.
WW, I never have any idea of what's been photoshopped. How can you tell this?
Kirby, Capitalism isn't a religious doctrine--though some of the neo-Cons would have you believe that.
American politics has increasingly been about class conflict, though often masked by certain strategic compromises between labor and big business. But the whole trend since WWII has been towards unfettered and unregulated exploitation, now global in scale.
It respects no borders, and holds "individual freedom" to exploit and exhaust resource--both natural and human--without limit.
We need a new model: One that recognizes limits, and respects them. The expansion model has been used for 500 years, since the time of the early Renaissance.
It's over.
What direction do you think America is likely to take, politically?
Curtis,
There are no limits save what can be limited by force.
A person can have self-force and, thereby, limit themselves and be productive human beings.
Headless entities (corporations -- especially ones without strong CEOs, headless religions, democratic states) cannot self-regulate (too many cooks in the kitchen) and therefore metastisize -- our 20th century increase in cancer happened on a macro as well as micro-scale.
Curtis, there are only two great rugby scrums in play. One of them is Calvinist, the other is communist.
I'm with the Calvinists, but would prefer a tertium quid that was more two-kingdom's oriented than either of our two rugby scrums.
I wasn't particularly enamored with either McCain (who I preferred) or Obama (who I thought was basically offering cheese curls).
It seems somewhat incredible to me that Obama won by simply tossing cheese curls to large crowds.
Can a nation live on cheese curls?
I think we will see how far this skimpy food substance (mostly air, with just a lick of a promise) gets us.
Hillary drove me crazy but at least she was a more substantial person than Obama.
Religion does provide a framework for politics. The Lutheran Scandinavian democracies are the light of the world. A huge part of that is the Lutheranism.
I think what we have here are a bunch of hyphenated rugby scrums (what Hamilton called factions), vying for power.
At this point, I just hope that no one of those factions gets a lock on power, and freezes out all the other factions.
the Democrats seem to think they have done that with this election, but I predict that their reign won't last more than two years.
Dear Kirby:
There is a gap in your thinking.
I meant to point this out earlier, but the internet was wonky.
Obama makes steps toward the sort of economic programs which are the norm in Northern European countries.
You call these steps Communism! EVIL!!
Then you go and continue to praise the democracies
whose policies
are more like Obama's
Than the Republicans.
You have never explained this away - your whole 'Northern Europe is homogeneous, so it's okay' schtick is empty and worn and doesn't address the issue.
You say the northern european countries are great, but you don't want America to follow their lead when it comes to things like health care, education, and transportation (etc.).
You have a hole here, and it stinks.
Rectify, baby, rectify!
The Republicans have locked Themselves out of power by being bad at their jobs.
Yuhr Fired!
All the Republican histrionics in the face of Obama's steadiness just look so out of touch. And the way he admits mistakes and takes responsibility for his actions is still hard for me to get used to after the last 8 years...
I think that's actually why he won - no more flailing about and being all emotional and unwilling to be wrong.
Just good, reasonable thinking, an ability to absorb lots of information, and big goals.
Simple enough!
Well, I like the enthusiasm, Brett. That's not what they're saying on Fox News.
I like to torment people with Lutheran countries, especially secularists. That's the key to my motivation in praising them in certain sites.
But I have mixed emotions about it here. Too many people that Lutheranism would help don't have a work ethic, and this bothers me.
Lutheranism guarantees a work ethic.
But I don't think the 3% and falling Lutherans should have to play Atlas and waltz the whole country around on their puny shoulders.
There were real drawbacks to Lutheran countries. It was almost impossible to get rich there. As a professor, the secretaries made almost as much as I did. And I made almost as much as doctors.
It paid off to do almost nothing.
That will work in Lutheran countries because of the strong work ethic.
Here, it might be a disaster.
Post a Comment