Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

Religion in power.

I think that is the phrase to focus on. A religion in power. You mentioned religion deals in absolutes, although this is incorrect, since some religions have absolutes and other religions are shades of grey. Hinduism, for example, codifies one's behaviors toward people higher or lower than you, but it is not a true absolute. There are people you can work with, and people you can't. Religions are complicated things. But it is a social construct, like you said. And this is why I mentioned the Holodomor. If you replace "religious ideals" with "political ideals", you see that the Holodomor is very similar in principle to the Inquisition. The Inquisitors believed that a nation of Catholics must be free of heretical members (in this case, conversos who secretly practiced their old religions) to ensure the survival and health of the nation. To ensure the well-being of the many, they were willing to persecute the few. Although the mindset of religious persecution for the good of the state is hard for us to imagine in this century, we cannot understand why such persecution happened unless we assume that frame of mind for a time. And if one does, it becomes very cool and logical that a nation which exists but by the grace of God, having just fought a bloody war to push back invading Muslim armies, must ensure God's continued favor by keeping the nation pious.

Of course a religion, be it the One True Faith, Scientology, or Pastafarianism, is a social construct. Its a group of people sharing the same ideas. Similarly Communism is a social construct. Communists are a group of people sharing the same ideas. Or perhaps a group of ideas shared by people? Whatever the definition, I see a distinct parallel between a religion in power and a political idea in power, or an economic idea in power. The belief of Christians, or example, is that if everyone were Christian the world would be a better place. The belief of Communists is that if everyone were Communist, the world would be a better place. Likewise Capitalists. Likewise Fascists. Likewise every single organization you can think of, save those deliberately opting for intellectual diversity (although they no doubt want everyone else respecting such diversity as well). So when you say a religion in power I can also see a political idea in power. A belief that, through Communism, the agonies of man can be ended and we will lift ourselves out of feudalism and wage-slavery to a worker's utopia. So when the Soviets began deliberately starving the Ukraine, they didn't do so out of simple hatred or spite. They did so because the Ukraine was full of capitalists, landholders, nationalists; people who opposed Communism. And since a world full of Communists would become a worker's paradise, it was justified, the same as it was justified to the Inquistors to torture here and there and execute the unrepentant.

And you find something in common between the Holocaust and the Holodrome, the Inquisition and the Terror. They take place by people who are absolutely convinced what they are doing is for the best, and they were given absolute power to solve all of the group's problems. So the Parisians killed their nobles for equality and the Nazis killed Jews for purity, and none of them thought they were being evil. They thought they were doing a bloody job for a better tomorrow for the greater part of their people.

So when you talk of benevolent dictators, please; remember that once they are dictators, benevolence is whatever they think is best.

[Grakelin]

Back on topic
some stuff about genocide

A Debate About Capitalism

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So? We know that concepts such as good, evil, and benevolence are purely subjective. What's your point? Everything we know of could be seen as good or evil. The Inquisitors were not justifying the slaughter of the few for the good of many. They wanted to kill those they deemed heritical because the Roman Catholic Church told them that they were not to tolerate heritics. They thought what they did was good, while most today think what they did was evil.

[ProZocK]

snip

    I understand what you say that when the actions we are discussing were taken, they were taken with the best intentions, and some even worked. The begging of the french evolution, for example, a complete bloodbath, that in retrospect was necessary (after that they kinda got out of hand, but that's another topic). I understand that, in the time of the inquisition, they weren't killing people because it was fun, but because they though it was the right thing to do. Same thing with the Holodomor and the holocaust and countless other acts.

    The thing is, we are judging these actions by today's standards, because our discussion about capitalism is grounded on today's world, because this line of argument arose when the opinion that capitalism, even though its imperfect and sucks for a lot of people, is still better than the examples we were given of other ways to handle society.

     When I talk about Religion dealing in absolutes and for that reason Theocracy not working, I have to be talking about the religions that do  actively seek the power of being the focal point of a government. Hinduism do influence the behavior of people in India, and surely people from different castes normally decide not to mingle, but I do not think that currently that are any written laws about it. As a matter of fact, there have been affirmative action measures taken by the Indian Government to include the members of the lower castes, even the untouchables, on the government itself. The laws of Hinduism then are not the laws of the country, but the law of those who follow the religion, so it cannot be called a Theocracy. If it was, the mingling between castes would be forbidden by the laws of state. It still deal in absolutes because the only way people will change castes is by dieing and being reborn. What happens if someone chooses not to believe in that?

     Any known system that is given full power will suck, capitalism included, as we seen on the industrial revolution. Thank god for the socialist people from that time that fought against the absolute control the owner's of factories had. As a result capitalism evolved to what is now modern capitalism, that even though profits are still the objective, there are checks and balances in the way of the rights of workers and the environmental protection laws to stop it from acting like tin the 1800. Those checks and balances are that much harder to be applied on a Theocracy, since how will you argue with the word of god or the prophets? Especially if, like religion is famous for doing, those that speak against it are branded as infidels, enemies of god and all that is holy and alive, being at the best scenario shunned completely, in the worse killed. As a social construct, Religion is exceedingly hard to be checked and balanced, since it entire premise is not based on logic but faith. How does one argue against faith in a convincing way?

    As I said before I don't think capitalism is perfect, or that the situation should stay like it is forever. But by comparing today's capitalism to every single other form of society that was actually implemented( communism, for example, is beautiful on paper, but has never been truly implemented and I don't think it could), the vast majority of us would prefer to live in it. If I lived in the past where i live now I would living in a Indian tribe, would love it and would never want to move out of it. I don't but in the system in place i can choose to do it. There are no laws making me have to stay on my capitalist country, if  i wanted I could choose to abandon it and live in another system. That kind of liberty is what makes it work for me.

And I never said anything about Benevolent dictatorship, that was another guy. Dictatorship is another one of those system that cant work in a long stretch of time, specially a benevolent one, since what benevolence is changes form person to person.

[Soadreqm]

We know that concepts such as good, evil, and benevolence are purely subjective.

[citation needed]

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We know that concepts such as good, evil, and benevolence are purely subjective.

[citation needed]

If they were not, then we would have no dissagrements on what is good at what is not. People decide what they think is good, and those that think otherwise are considered evil. Benevolence is a good act, but the definition of good is in itself subjective. History shows us, more than anything else, that people can come to wildly differant conclusions on good and evil. There is nothing true, nor is their anything false, when it comes to good and evil.

[ed boy]

We know that these things are subjective because people's definitions of them very. Indeed, most words in the english language are subjective (but this all depends on your definition of subjective). In fact, the only words that I can think of that are not subjective are mathematical terms of logical operators.

[Nikov]

Back on topic
some stuff about genocide

A Debate About Capitalism

I've kind of had this theme about decentralized over centralized power since maybe page ten. This ties in with capitalism over, say, communism. You should try reading half your thread and stop posting crap about Justin Bieber and 4chan.

@ ProZock: I believe we are generally in agreement then in that checks and balances are needed in any system, that decentralized power provides more justice than centralized power, ect.

[Huesoo]

Back on topic
some stuff about genocide

A Debate About Capitalism

I've kind of had this theme about decentralized over centralized power since maybe page ten. This ties in with capitalism over, say, communism. You should try reading half your thread and stop posting crap about Justin Bieber and 4chan.

@ ProZock: I believe we are generally in agreement then in that checks and balances are needed in any system, that decentralized power provides more justice than centralized power, ect.

But without 4chan and Justin Beiber why live? Also, I enjoy the capitalist system.

[ProZocK]

@ ProZock: I believe we are generally in agreement then in that checks and balances are needed in any system, that decentralized power provides more justice than centralized power, ect.

Agreed, the best system I can think off would be the point of balance between centralization and decentralization, even though no one has any idea how to reach it yet.

[Josephus]

So? We know that concepts such as good, evil, and benevolence are purely subjective. What's your point? Everything we know of could be seen as good or evil.

Yes, because even your precious freedom can be seen as evil, if it is freedom to kill do nasty things to other people?

[Earthquake Damage]

We know that concepts such as good, evil, and benevolence are purely subjective.

[citation needed]

A wise guy, eh?  Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

Agreed, the best system I can think off would be the point of balance between centralization and decentralization, even though no one has any idea how to reach it yet.

You realize, of course, that your ideal balance point will differ from your neighbor's.

[ProZocK]

Agreed, the best system I can think off would be the point of balance between centralization and decentralization, even though no one has any idea how to reach it yet.

You realize, of course, that your ideal balance point will differ from your neighbor's.

That's why I said no one knows it. Reaching the perfect point may never happen, shouldn't stop us from trying though. Gotta keep evolving.

[Josephus]

Agreed, the best system I can think off would be the point of balance between centralization and decentralization, even though no one has any idea how to reach it yet.

You realize, of course, that your ideal balance point will differ from your neighbor's.

That's why I said no one knows it. Reaching the perfect point may never happen, shouldn't stop us from trying though. Gotta keep evolving.

Adapting would be a better word. "Evolution" seems too grand a word.

[ProZocK]

I think evolving fits as well, but oh well. At least the right meaning was understood.