What is Morality?

[DarthPorg36]

You also need to draw a distinction between Marxism, Communism, Lenin and Stalinism and don't forget Maoism. Which strain is being referred to here?

I would say that the Marxist creed as originally expressed by good old Karl, is an admirable moral stance for organising an economy. We haven't seen a single instance of it yet.

Here, I agree with you. OG Marxism is the best form of government, hands-down no contest, if it worked. The issue, like HangingRook also touched on, is that Marxism hasn't ever happened for a reason - it can't function as a government. It either devolves into a dictatorship or anarchy, and both quickly devolve into oppression of the masses by said government (Soviet Union), or whichever gang gets enough power (Haiti) (Yes, I know, not communist, but good example of Anarchy).

The others don't work. Leninism and Stalinism (especially the second) resulted in a lot, a lot, a lot, of deaths. This is what I think CF was touching on. The Holodomor and Gulags along killed so so so many people, deemed enemies of the state. Maoism did something similar, and basically inadvertently starved a large portion of China.

No wonder a large portion of people consider Joseph Stalin the 2nd worst human being to ever walk the earth.

I'd like you to name me one country that has actually benefitting the working class people in the end by converting to communism, of any form.

Capitalism (with some government oversight) has flaws, yes, but it is easily the least bad economic system.

[CaptainFritz28]

In my view our moral imperative is to unite the masses of workers, overthrow the exploiters and warmongers, and create a more rational society where resources are allocated based on human need.

Sounds great, sure. Otherwise known as Communism, and is responsible for about 100 million deaths.

Hypocrisy again: Communism deaths (and even your attestation is debatable and proof-less) bad, religiously inspired deaths, glossed over.

Your world view is pretty skewed young man. Let's hope university opens your eyes.

On the contrary, the deaths caused by Communism are directly due to the teachings of it. I condemn the deaths caused in the name of Christianity just as much as anything else, but the fact of the matter is that it is the opposite of what the Bible teaches.

[CaptainFritz28]

The clear value judgement CF places is very American.

Thank you.

[CaptainFritz28]

"Continuing from above to answer certain other questions about how to decide whose morality to side with, I encourage you to take the side that benefits the overwhelming majority of human beings." Is also irrelevant but tolerated on this thread - an yet it doesn't go to the original question posed - its outright barracking for a particular approach.

I'm a bit confused by the point you are making here. Perhaps you could explain?

[CaptainFritz28]

You also need to draw a distinction between Marxism, Communism, Lenin and Stalinism and don't forget Maoism. Which strain is being referred to here?

All are a result of Marxism, which would be awesome in a perfect world. The ideology of Marxism is not bad, but it doesn't work in our real world. Christianity, on the other hand, while it can also be skewed, provides the best framework to deal with the flawed world.

However, the world is not perfect. Specifically I refer to the period of time between 1917 and 1991, the rise of the Soviet Union and communist China, and their underlings.

I would say that the Marxist creed as originally expressed by good old Karl, is an admirable moral stance for organising an economy. We haven't seen a single instance of it yet.

I mostly agree. However, we have not seen an instance of it because it is impossible. It only takes one evil person with power to turn it into a total dictatorship.

I'm curious which particular flavour of "Communism" CF refers to with his 100 million deaths, his proof of the association, and why exactly it is the direct cause. Then he really should go on to explain why he can so easily gloss over the known millions of deaths cause by religion, but condemn those caused by "Communism".

Fair question isn't it?

As above re: Communism. Regarding the deaths cause in the name of religion, I agree that a) almost every religion is evil, and b) the deaths caused in the name of Christianity are evil. But again, they are the opposite of what the Bibl teaches.
[/quote]

Or do we only question those unaligned with the current groupthink?

Considering that the current zietgeist is rather anti-Christian, I would say that this is more true than you realize.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The whole death accounting approach to deciding who is worse (communism v. capitalism; religion v. secular) is a total nonstarter.

None of the definitions are tight enough to make meaningful comparisons.

None of the rationale for the conflicts being gestured towards are straightforwardly dogmatic/ideological.

Even if all this were clear, which it absolutely is not, the starting conditions make a huge and arbitrary difference - where and when these ideas took off will matter hugely in their perceived death count.

There are other, better ways to argue for or against the merits of religion, markets, collectivization, etc. At a minimum, if this is a topic of interest, we should probably focus on actual cases to ensure it's not just strawmen on all sides.

[Hanging Rook]

And to quote Bastiat: Competition is merely the absence of oppression.

He was wrong of course. Absent of some form of intervention, what starts out as competition frequently tends towards monopoly over time.

I don’t agree with everything Bastiat said, but he has quite handy quotes when it comes to criticizing communism, that’s probably why Marx called him“the shallowest and therefore the most successful representative of the apologists of vulgar economics“.

Anyway, I do think there should be a strong role of the state in the economy (contrary to Bastiat), but it should be rather in providing infrastructure (natural monopoly) and actually generating fair and transparent markets with equal, low cost access for everyone. New information technologies should actually make a lot possible in that regard.

I feel states, since the days of Gladstone passed, are rather intervening in a discrediting and discriminating way and thus generating entry barriers and monopolies by giving market power to cumulated capital and are thus undermining fair competition. So just about what you said only different conclusions.

So another quote now by G.K. Chesterton: „Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.“

[Crazy Anglican]

There are other, better ways to argue for or against the merits of religion, markets, collectivization, etc. At a minimum, if this is a topic of interest, we should probably focus on actual cases to ensure it's not just strawmen on all sides.

Okay, how about Ko Dang (Cho Man Sik) vs. Kim Il Sung (and Juche)


Ko Dang was nick-named the Gandhi of Korea (and was a contemporary of Gandhi) for embracing nonviolent protest. He raised as under Confucian teaching but became a protestant Christian. Even so, he was favored as a potential leader of Korea by the Soviets (who repeatedly tried to influence him to allow Soviet Trusteeship- under the four powers trusteeship plan). When he wouldn't agree to that level of Soviet influence over Korea, he was imprisoned (where he continued to protest Soviet war crimes in occupied Korea). The Soviets turned to Kim Il-Sung as a potential leader in Korea. By this time the differences between the south and the north were so great that the Korean war began with the north invading the south. At that time and for years after the north was by far the more prosperous of the two. Cho Man Sik was reportedly executed along with 5,000 other prisoners when the communists fled Pyongyang.

KoDang was human and made mistakes, among them advocating for Korean students to join the Japanese Imperial Army. That opened the door for lots of Soviet propaganda painting him as a collaborator, which was successful in keeping him out of the vice-presidency of Korea. Still if he were able to gain more influence in the North it may very well have averted the Korean War and the entire Choson peninsula could have become as prosperous as the South is today.

Instead Kim Il-Sung was permitted to found what has become the Kim dynasty in North Korea. His philosophy of Juche (self reliance) is a communist one, and ironically named since the only time that North Korea has been more prosperous than South Korea has been when it was heavily subsidized by the USSR. Today, North Korea is in a terrible totalitarian state. This could have been avoided by putting the right man in power.

General Choi Hong Hi, the founder of the International Tae-Kwon-Do Federation, found himself in a tricky position in the 1990's in that he had more western black belt students than Koreans (his headquarters was in Canada at the time). Thus in an effort to recruit North Koreans (and suck up to Kim Il Sung) he changed the took the hyung (form/ kata) Ko-Dang out of the ITF's system and replaced it with the hyung Juche. For the reasons I've pointed out, my Taekwondo students learn Ko-Dang instead of the official one Juche.

[Wusti]

Sounds great, sure. Otherwise known as Communism, and is responsible for about 100 million deaths.

Hypocrisy again: Communism deaths (and even your attestation is debatable and proof-less) bad, religiously inspired deaths, glossed over.

Your world view is pretty skewed young man. Let's hope university opens your eyes.

On the contrary, the deaths caused by Communism are directly due to the teachings of it. I condemn the deaths caused in the name of Christianity just as much as anything else, but the fact of the matter is that it is the opposite of what the Bible teaches.

Hahaha OK I'm not letting that one through - Communism is the opposite of what the bible teaches? Ahem - you need to go read some Karl Marx buddy. Give a proof please - not a random opinion - cite New Testament teachings that are actually opposite what Marx originally wrote please.

BTW Darthporg - thank you for your responses - its clear you have thought about the question and answered honestly. That's all anyone can ask. I don't have to agree with you, but I can certainly respect that.

ON the issue of Communism, I am not a fan of the various implementations of Command economies in its name. The history is there for all to see.

Like Jamie I also think unfettered capitalism is easily as great a threat. I think the Nordics have the balance pretty darn right - modified capitalism, some call Socialism. Please don't throw the radical right blah blah BS about spending others peoples money at me. Capitalism requires modification to create sustainable, fair, egalitarian societies, of which I am a big fan, Education is a right not a privilege, Healthcare should be accessible to all based on need, not socio-economic status, etc etc.

Having said that, the question is about Morality. I'd say that unfettered Capitalism is every bit as immoral as Stalinism.

[Crazy Anglican]

Hypocrisy again: Communism deaths (and even your attestation is debatable and proof-less) bad, religiously inspired deaths, glossed over.

Your world view is pretty skewed young man. Let's hope university opens your eyes.

On the contrary, the deaths caused by Communism are directly due to the teachings of it. I condemn the deaths caused in the name of Christianity just as much as anything else, but the fact of the matter is that it is the opposite of what the Bible teaches.

Hahaha OK I'm not letting that one through - Communism is the opposite of what the bible teaches? Ahem - you need to go read some Karl Marx buddy. Give a proof please - not a random opinion - cite New Testament teachings that are actually opposite what Marx originally wrote please.

CaptFritz can certainly correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was arguing that Communism is the opposite of New Testament teachings. I believe his point was if a Christian were killing off large numbers of people [as communists have shown a propensity for doing] it is a safe bet that we can find a valid Biblically based response saying it is bad to do such a thing.

It might be his assertion that Marx's teaching cannot be used in the same way to condemn the bad acts of communists.

I'm sure CaptFritz will come along and elaborate, but it seems to me that you're missing his point.

BTW Darthporg - thank you for your responses - its clear you have thought about the question and answered honestly. That's all anyone can ask. I don't have to agree with you, but I can certainly respect that.

well spoken.

ON the issue of Communism, I am not a fan of the various implementations of Command economies in its name. The history is there for all to see.

true.

Like Jamie I also think unfettered capitalism is easily as great a threat. I think the Nordics have the balance pretty darn right - modified capitalism, some call Socialism. Please don't throw the radical right blah blah BS about spending others peoples money at me. Capitalism requires modification to create sustainable, fair, egalitarian societies, of which I am a big fan, Education is a right not a privilege, Healthcare should be accessible to all based on need, not socio-economic status, etc etc.

Having said that, the question is about Morality. I'd say that unfettered Capitalism is every bit as immoral as Stalinism.

I don't think anyone actually made any claim about unfettered capitalism being superior to anything. Most people don't want ten-year-olds losing fingers in factory equipment, so mixed economies tend to be the best. The discussion is usuallly, "where is it best to land on the economic continuum between Free Market and Command Economy".

[CaptainFritz28]

CA is right, I was not saying that Communism is the opposite to what the Bible teaches but that killing people unjustly is opposite to what the Bible teaches.

And yeah, unfettered just about anything is going to be bad, and that includes Capitalism.

[Wusti]

CA is right, I was not saying that Communism is the opposite to what the Bible teaches but that killing people unjustly is opposite to what the Bible teaches.

And yeah, unfettered just about anything is going to be bad, and that includes Capitalism.

OK fair enough - I misread it.

[Crazy Anglican]

So, tentative and very vague agreement, the most moral economy in practice, is a mixed economy?

[DarthPorg36]

I believe that is our consensus.

[Hanging Rook]

So, tentative and very vague agreement, the most moral economy in practice, is a mixed economy?

No- the most moral economic system would be an economy based on (radical) Georgism.

[Jamiet99uk]

I would prefer an economy based on Georgism to the one we currently have. (And would agree that it would be more moral).

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

So, tentative and very vague agreement, the most moral economy in practice, is a mixed economy?

No- the most moral economic system would be an economy based on (radical) Georgism.

Isn's Georgism still a mixed economy? You'd be socializing one part of the economy (land rents) in exchange for liberalizing other parts of the economy (eliminating income taxes). If we (Western countries) went this route we would still have an economic system based on private enterprise and wealth accumulation, with some redistribution.

[CaptainFritz28]

By mixed economy, I think those of us who believe it us most moral are not necessarily referring to its use currently, as much as its idea of being neither extreme of full capitalist or full socialist.

I believe that the government has a place in regulating the economy, but that that place is very limited, and should be restricted to the goal of ensuring that monopolies do not form, or that enterprising new businesses can grow easily in the face of such monopolies to create competition.

The best economy is one in which competition is necessary to ensure survival, meaning that each business works as hard as possible and does everything in their power to ensure quality of their products. The government owning businesses is just a monopoly, and unfettered capitalism allows for monopolies, so a mixed, albeit mostly free, market is the best.

[Hanging Rook]

So, tentative and very vague agreement, the most moral economy in practice, is a mixed economy?

No- the most moral economic system would be an economy based on (radical) Georgism.

Isn's Georgism still a mixed economy? You'd be socializing one part of the economy (land rents) in exchange for liberalizing other parts of the economy (eliminating income taxes). If we (Western countries) went this route we would still have an economic system based on private enterprise and wealth accumulation, with some redistribution.

I agree it is the best of both- I just assumed with mixed most people think of regulating and taxing everything a bit or more

[Hanging Rook]

By mixed economy, I think those of us who believe it us most moral are not necessarily referring to its use currently, as much as its idea of being neither extreme of full capitalist or full socialist.

I believe that the government has a place in regulating the economy, but that that place is very limited, and should be restricted to the goal of ensuring that monopolies do not form, or that enterprising new businesses can grow easily in the face of such monopolies to create competition.

The best economy is one in which competition is necessary to ensure survival, meaning that each business works as hard as possible and does everything in their power to ensure quality of their products. The government owning businesses is just a monopoly, and unfettered capitalism allows for monopolies, so a mixed, albeit mostly free, market is the best.

According to Henry George private landownership is the mother of all monopolies.
Georgists even invented the game Monopoly to point this out.

For young generations it feels like coming to the game late and all to land is taken, and they say don’t worry you get our dice, we don’t need them, just give us a share of what you get every time you pass start.

Capitalism on the other hand is by name just the private ownership to capital.
And capital is the produce of labour to the support of labour. Somehow land rights and other monopoly sources got mixed up in it, maybe because most financial claims are on all three of this.