Pope says communists are closet Christians

originally posted by: NavyDoc
However, making a profit is not "greed." People also can be greedy in other systems: greedy for more accolades or awards, or better sexual partners. "Greed" can be seen in any society.

Profit by its very definition is greed.
You are seeking to get something at a higher value for self by taking it from someone else.
If its not greed, then your trades would be of equal value.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: NavyDoc

Capitalism is not based on "greed." It is based on a free and uncoerced exchange of goods and services. Yes, to some people any exonomy is "greedy," but capitalism in and itself is not about greed.

One could argue that it is.

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits.

I can easily see how such a practice might bring out the greed in people.

However, making a profit is not "greed." People also can be greedy in other systems: greedy for more accolades or awards, or better sexual partners. "Greed" can be seen in any society.

Making a profit is worthless unless you're looking to gain something. And it's a short step from that point to greed.

I'm not really a Treky or anything, but I know that a lot of folks are.
Whether they realize it or not, the Earth in Star Trek is a communist society.

originally posted by: defcon5
I'm not really a Treky or anything, but I know that a lot of folks are.
Whether they realize it or not, the Earth in Star Trek is a communist society.

Yes, a communist society where those higher in the hierarchy have more things--the bigger staterooms, the more respect. Greed and self interest also apply that utopian society, just with a different modicum of exchange.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: defcon5
I'm not really a Treky or anything, but I know that a lot of folks are.
Whether they realize it or not, the Earth in Star Trek is a communist society.

Yes, a communist society where those higher in the hierarchy have more things--the bigger staterooms, the more respect. Greed and self interest also apply that utopian society, just with a different modicum of exchange.

True communism would not allow that to happen. True communism doesn't make exceptions for political leaders and corporate honchos. That would be the equivalent of saying that democracy applies to everyone except for the President and Congress.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
Making a profit is worthless unless you're looking to gain something. And it's a short step from that point to greed.

In order for me to make a profit someone else HAS to register a loss. Either will have to in the future or has already had to register one in the past.

This is mathematically demonstrable.

Let's take that history channel show, 'Storage Wars'.

All you see is those auctioneers usually making a profit off of the storage units they purchase, be it meagre or great.

Where does that profit come from?

It comes from the loss of the person who used to own the storage unit.

However, nobody says that and nobody seems to think that.

That profit ALWAYS come from someone else's loss.

There is no other place it can come from, unless new money is printed so it can come from no-one.

But even then, the purchasing power of the new money comes from the old money, whose purchasing power it reduces by appropriating a fraction of.

a reply to: Chiftel

I have no idea what point you were trying to make.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Chiftel

I have no idea what point you were trying to make.

Capitalism can not provide the best possible outcome for the most people. And this is mathematically demonstrable.

As is the fact that it needs perpetual growth and perpetual growth in the money supply just to keep from imploding into a death spiral of doom.

It's not about greed.

If you don't screw people over you don't register a profit, simple as that.

And even if you don't register a profit, you're taking money from people and giving it to businesses.

And people will run out of money unless the banks create more, at an exponentially increasing rate.

If they don't, the economy starts to contract.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Yes, a communist society where those higher in the hierarchy have more things--the bigger staterooms, the more respect. Greed and self interest also apply that utopian society, just with a different modicum of exchange.

Actually they don't.
If you've ever watched the show all the quarters are the same, even going back to the original show. They may have different trinkets and decorations, but as those are all made via replicator anyway, they are just a matter of personal preference. I think that the only people with bigger quarters are those with families and VIP quarters for guests.

Most people don't even have a clue of what communism actually means, so they're not gonna understand this quote. And this whole 'Christian is free will charity' thing. So the Christian thing to do is let millions starve and be unable to live a life with basic needs and wants, but have some people voluntarily give some money which will help a tiny fraction of those in need? So Christianity's about feeling good about yourself moreso than trying to actually affect real tangible change?

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: defcon5
I'm not really a Treky or anything, but I know that a lot of folks are.
Whether they realize it or not, the Earth in Star Trek is a communist society.

Yes, a communist society where those higher in the hierarchy have more things--the bigger staterooms, the more respect. Greed and self interest also apply that utopian society, just with a different modicum of exchange.

True communism would not allow that to happen. True communism doesn't make exceptions for political leaders and corporate honchos. That would be the equivalent of saying that democracy applies to everyone except for the President and Congress.

"Wouldn't permit?" Everytime one points out the failings of he Communist ideal the response is "well, it wouldn't be permitted"--showing the same problem with Communism over and over--that individuality must be sublimated into the collective and coercion is an inevitable result.

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Yes, a communist society where those higher in the hierarchy have more things--the bigger staterooms, the more respect. Greed and self interest also apply that utopian society, just with a different modicum of exchange.

Actually they don't.
If you've ever watched the show all the quarters are the same, even going back to the original show. They may have different trinkets and decorations, but as those are all made via replicator anyway, they are just a matter of personal preference. I think that the only people with bigger quarters are those with families and VIP quarters for guests.

Actually no. Quarters are divided up by rank. I had the official enterprise blueprints as a kid. Only senior officers got to their own room, junior officers had a roommate, and so forth. It makes sense--if everyone had a apartment on the ship, it would have been huge and there would have been no room for other stuff.

Even in the "Communist ideals" in native tribes and monasteries, you still had hierarchies--you had the elders, you had the chief, you had the abbot. Because human beings are not insects and all have different skill levels, perceived needs, wants, talents, desires, intellect, "true" communism is not possible

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Yes, a communist society where those higher in the hierarchy have more things--the bigger staterooms, the more respect. Greed and self interest also apply that utopian society, just with a different modicum of exchange.

Actually they don't.
If you've ever watched the show all the quarters are the same, even going back to the original show. They may have different trinkets and decorations, but as those are all made via replicator anyway, they are just a matter of personal preference. I think that the only people with bigger quarters are those with families and VIP quarters for guests.

In addition, your comment actually contradicts yourself--"VIP quarters?" I thought all were equal in the communist future: there should be no VIPs.

Yes, a communist society where those higher in the hierarchy have more things--the bigger staterooms, the more respect. Greed and self interest also apply that utopian society, just with a different modicum of exchange.

If there's a hierarchy, it's not communist. That's what people don't get. Communism is a classless society. People point out examples of societies where tons of people were poor and lacking basic necessities and a few elite who live lavishly, who called themselves communist, and say 'see this is communism.' No, that's by definition not communist. If you can point out a society of absolute equality in every way conceivable, including wealth/material, then we have an actual example of communism to work with.

a reply to: NavyDoc

True communism is possible, though as with any system...there will be flaws.

If you compare all economic systems side by side, communism would be superior in that it takes care of all the basic needs to survive. That alone sets it apart from capitalism and the rest. Could it not be said that communism has a higher moral standard that any other economic system?

Anyway, I've been saying for some time that we will eventually grow up and decide to work together for a common goal. Most likely space exploration. Then we will become a communist society.

Capitalism, while it had a good run, has torn this world to shreds and we are paying the price for our greed.

originally posted by: TheJourney

Yes, a communist society where those higher in the hierarchy have more things--the bigger staterooms, the more respect. Greed and self interest also apply that utopian society, just with a different modicum of exchange.

If there's a hierarchy, it's not communist. That's what people don't get. Communism is a classless society. People point out examples of societies where tons of people were poor and lacking basic necessities and a few elite who live lavishly, who called themselves communist, and say 'see this is communism.' No, that's by definition not communist. If you can point out a society of absolute equality in every way conceivable, including wealth/material, then we have an actual example of communism to work with.

And that's what the utopians don't get. "True" communism is impossible--impossible without changing that what makes us human.

Nobody is completely equal or the same as another. Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are better looking. You can never have a "classless" society without imposing some awful restrictions on people and destroying individuality, free thought, and innovation. It's unfair that I can't dance ballet. Let's break Barishnikov's legs so that I'm an equal dancer to him. It's not just that pretty women don't want to have sex with you, so lets force the pretty women to have sex with ugly guys too because sexual attractiveness class distinction is against the communist ideal.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't think that you understand what communism actually is.

Communism is a system in which the basic needs of life are guaranteed and provided by the state. It controls production/supply of those resources and disperses as needed.

Capitalism and free trade can coexist with communism and that is where ingenuity, intelligence and drive can shine.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't think that you understand what communism actually is.

Communism is a system in which the basic needs of life are guaranteed and provided by the state. It controls production/supply of those resources and disperses as needed.

Capitalism and free trade can coexist with communism and that is where ingenuity, intelligence and drive can shine.

State control of production/supply are directly the inverse of free trade and capitalism. Where is any communist model that states state control would be to ONLY those rescourses as essential to life and who gets to decide what is essential? You get back to people making decision and when you have people making decision, then you get back to hierarchies and class.

What does the state do to those who don't want to contribute at all but still get all of their needs met?

I don't think you understand what communism is either.

originally posted by: Chiftel

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Chiftel

I have no idea what point you were trying to make.

Capitalism can not provide the best possible outcome for the most people. And this is mathematically demonstrable.

As is the fact that it needs perpetual growth and perpetual growth in the money supply just to keep from imploding into a death spiral of doom.

It's not about greed.

If you don't screw people over you don't register a profit, simple as that.

And even if you don't register a profit, you're taking money from people and giving it to businesses.

And people will run out of money unless the banks create more, at an exponentially increasing rate.

If they don't, the economy starts to contract.

Hence, the federal reserve!

a reply to: NavyDoc

Communism does not necessarily treat everyone equally. There is still a hierarchy. Was there not an Indian chief or a tribal leader who was lavished with more gifts than other members of the tribe? If someone lavished the tribe with gold was it not the chief who held possession of it and decided what to do with it? The main thing about communism is that decisions are made based on the benefit of the whole population rather than the enrichment of a select few. Those that were of higher value, generally still received more but not to the extant that the lesser went wanting. And that is what communism is really about. The state owning all and working for the benefit of the people. Just because there is no profit does not mean that productio0n stops. It just gets financed by the state rather than private entities.

Alaska, for example, is communist in that the oil revenues get split between all citizens of the state regardless of whether they contribute to the industry or not. Would it be better if all this money instead went to private companies?

I am in favor of communism or socialism for our needs and capitalism for everything else. We can and we should set a minimum living standard in line with our resource availability. When that oil runs out a good percentage of those capitalist will be screaming for a communists solution.