but there is very deep meaning behind that quote... you have to deconstruct it for its meaning to flower into full bloom.

it is a VERY deep statement... i'm curious which enlightened soul in this community can deconstruct that sentence for us all.

is it that if people know its a superstition, then by definition, it stops being one.
To be a true superstition, people must think it without realizing its just a superstition.

YES

very very good....

so if people already call something a superstition (black cat is bad luck, cracked mirror means poor health etc) then the superstition loses its power... because everyone realizes its 'just a superstition' and that it has no truth to it...

but if people do not realize that their belief system is faulty, and that the crap they actually believe is NOT true (*ahem*Capitalism*ahem*... THEN... only THEN is it really a superstition...


in light of the fact that I saw Michael Moore's new movie tonight... Capitalism is the ULTIMATE superstition...

I'd say that capitalism and socialism are both superstitions

also communism and very often democracy, and probably anarchism too

sorry I should clarify... capitalism itself is not a superstition... the superstition is that "Capitalism is the best method for the distribution of economic resources"


Noirin, seen MM's movie yet by any chance?

The statement is a logical FAIL.

@Babak "the superstition is that "Capitalism is the best method for the distribution of economic resources""

Personally I think the best system does involve some kind of market economy. Is that what you mean by capitalism? What is the alternative? A planned economy?

To back up my comment, basically you are arguing:

S=1 => S/=1

And

S/=1 => S=1

Which logically cannot be correct.

(I've used /= to indicate the "not equal to" sign of an = with a line through it, because there is not a key for this)

(Where S stands for "Superstition" and can be equal to either 1 or 0.

Jamie beat me to it, your argument is flawed from a symbolic logical perspective ;)

I don't think the statement is meant to be interpreted literally. It's kind of a play on words. Dave Bishop figured it out.

About capitalism: The truth is we are just looking for some balance between state control of the economy and market control. Basically we should/will just oscillate around the middle looking for the happy medium. Neither extreme is a good thing.

babak: haven't seen it.
As you, I meant they were superstitions if considered the best "thing". But probably some are also superstitions if someone thinks they can exist.

Removing the grammar and modifying words from a sentence does not make it more profound. It just makes it read badly.

As for Capitalism, The Corporation is another good view on this subject, as is the article called Jihad vs McWorld (Barber).

Capitalism has replaced kingdom, though you can earn your way into it, if you know the right people, don't have to change your thinking too much and are ok manipulating others out of their ability to choose for themselves.

the statement is indeed a profound philosophical statement about what we humans think is right/true vs what really is. it is not meant to be a mathematical equation. it actually strives to define the word superstition (S) by dealing in the level of understanding a person has of the given superstition... so in fact, you are dealing with

S = a real superstition
US = "Understood superstition" - a superstition that is understood to be a superstition
RS = "Real superstition" - a superstition where people have not yet figured out that they believe something that is not actually true

so the statement is

S =/ S if US
S = S iff RS

does that work for you mathematically?

and bishop got it on the first try ;)


as for capitalism... Moore does a great thin in this movie... he separates Capitalism from Democracy, and he distills the propaganda that we have been subjected to in favor of Capitalism as it is currently practiced in the US.

the fact is that even the US is not a pure capitalist economy, its just that our balance of state regulation is off kilter... Europe has a much better balance.

"the statement is indeed a profound philosophical statement..."

No it isn't. It's nothing but smug, pretentious ego-wanking, "wow, I'm one of the cleverest people on here" cod philosophy.

Who do you think you are, the next Plato?

Any idea that allows us to think differently, which may be anything from "Daddy, I love you." to the poorly written above, ( though I expect this is a Buddhist Koan and in that case, forget grammar) and a million others as well, does allow for a moment which one may experienced as profound.

There is a lot of good in these meaningful moments, and often they are not easy as we try to figure them out.

So, Babek, I've made two assertions on this thread... take them any way you like.

@ Jamie, personal attacks are not necessary.



PS Barber noted the separation Capitalism from Democracy years ago in his essay Jihad vs McWorld, and I'm sure others before him. I like Moore, though I've not seen this new film yet, but he didn't come up with that idea.

@ Jamie, you might have a point despite your attack...

Cod philosophy, sometimes cod-philosophy, is a term for the personal philosophy of the masses, or the philosophical musings of one who has not formally studied philosophy. The word "cod" comes from first syllable of "codswallop", and so the term carries with it a negative connotation. [1]

There are so many that seem to hate capitalism...
Shouldn't we hate corruption?
Communism is a farce. No private property???
Before saying anything read the communist manifesto...
Socialism is designed to encourage corruption and eliminate choice...
Anarchy??? maybe if there were no nukes, but that's not the case and thus makes as much sense as a retard eating crayons....
The US is not a democratic state anyway its a republic which is doomed to the same corrupt failure Rome suffered. We have politicians. As long as career government people are making decisions for career working people they will screw us all as much as they can. If you try to tell me what a fine upstanding man Ted Kennedy was then I say we should all be able to do EXACTLY the same things he did. Lets make the same laws that protected him protect us. It was supposed to be government by the people right??? So why do senators get special privilege?
@ Babak- I am not trying to hijack your thread and I swore to myself I would never talk politics with you.

I must admit I am not sure that I find the statement that profound either.
In a nutshell there is stuff that we believe to be true that is actually wrong? Or perhaps to be more specific sometimes we perceive a causal relationship between things when in fact none exists? Is there any more to the statement than that really?

I haven't seen Michael Moore's new movie yet, but like any political documentary, I have no doubt that it is full of cardstacking. Just because a documentary can show you some things that you know or think to be true, doesn't mean that the rest of it is also correct. Perhaps this movie is an exception to the rule and actually carries out a fairly weighted analysis of empirical evidence as well as an understanding of the mechanisms and assumptions that underlie neoclassical economics... but for some reason I get the idea that it will be more an emotional argument with demonstration of the fantasy land that is socialism and the hellhole that is capitalism plus a healthy dose of sarcasm meant to imply that the answer is already quite obvious and anybody thinking otherwise is naive.

Damn Chrisp. You just nailed every Michael Moore (is less) movie ever made.

Chrisp +100!

That is not to say that I don't enjoy Michael Moore documentaries. They're highly entertaining, but I feel he does a much better job of highlighting the immense hypocrisy of the government and large businesses than he does of arguing his theses. His movies are just too oversimplified and emotional for me to seriously believe that he has proven to any degree that capitalism is the modern superstition.

@ Chris,

You may well have a point there, but given that Moore's introducing ideas to many who probably have not considered them before, and to mainstream America who have yet to freak out over the biased and propagandizing news media in any substantial way, it's probably the best way he thinks to make the information accessible. I'm pretty sure he'd loose a lot of potential viewers if his title was something like this: "An analysis of empirical evidence [with] an understanding of the mechanisms and assumptions that underlie neoclassical economics." Ya, that would get the information out.

LOL!! Socialism is a fantasy? Really... Sweden? Canada? France? These stable countries, among others are fantasy? Really... Hey Canada's banking system is healthy, how about those in the US?

Here's what I consider a fantasy: That to have Universal Health Care would make the US Socialist. Now that's a lovely bit of propaganda, and who benefits from this kind of fear mongering? Why I do believe it would be the corporate interest.

Tell ya what Chrisp, read this:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=barber+jihad+vs+mcworld&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

It was written in the early 90's pre 9/11 and explains much of the reasons as to why terrorism is now a global concern, and it's a little beyond Mr Moore's work...

@giapeep,

Of course I don't expect Moore to actually formulate a movie like that. That doesn't make my point any more invalid. Anyone who comes out from seeing a Michael Moore movie, or indeed any political documentary, has not been convinced logically and their conclusions that capitalism is a lie and that universal health care is the only answer are not founded. I hope that people interested in the ideas behind the film will do their own personal research, and take both sides into account, but I don't expect that to happen to a significant degree because a lot of people simply don't have the time or interest to invest in such knowledge. A little bit of knowledge is dangerous, especially when you are convinced that a shallow understanding is enough to take a hard stance on any issue.

I didn't mean to imply that socialism was a fantasy, or equally that capitalism was a hellhole... but Michael Moore's rhetoric and filming certainly depicts it that way. I am Canadian, I have lived in Canada all my life. I have visited America and France (though not Sweden). I am grateful for the Canadian medical system, and I have many American friends. Don't assume that I take partisan sides. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social progressive, and above all, a pragmatic. I'm actually for Universal Heathcare, though I'm still in the process of doing research into the topic so that my stance is better informed and well justified. I do believe that in industries prone to externalities, such as healthcare, government regulation is necessary. However, markets are the driving force of wealth creation and it would be killing the goose laying the golden eggs to stifle markets with regulation or planned economy.

There's a gradient between free-market capitalism and communism, and no line that demarcates capitalism from socialism. Having universal healthcare doesn't magically transform America into a socialist country, it only moves America further along the gradient in the socialist direction. I would prefer if the American government would just make cuts to its bloated military budget, which would easily allow for universal healthcare AND tax cuts, but we all know that that is not going to happen. If universal healthcare is enacted, then government spending will inevitably be increased, and as is the trend with government, it won't be making cuts so much as it will likely cause an increase in income tax. I don't oppose socialism because of some Cold War fear of communism, but because pragmatically I believe it will lead to less efficient markets, slower innovation, and will ultimately impede our progress.

I don't really see how that book relates to what we're discussing, but I'll put it on my reading list.

I've never been one much for arguing on the interwebs but I think this thread needs a little libertarian ideology...

First of all, to say that capitalism is a superstition is a meaningless statement, unless what one is really trying to argue is that the US economy is a superstition. This is sort of true as our currency is fiduciary or faith based. In that case, the problem is not with the argument itself, but simply the argument's esoteric presentation. On the other hand to make the argument doesn't work without supporting evidence as to why another system is more favorable is no argument at all. It's just picking a fight.

A free economy is as necessary an evil as the democratic process. The aims of government are the protection of individual rights whereas the aims of business are, as Chris pointed out, the generation of wealth. No single organization can accomplish one without some loss to the other. A business will not attempt to protect anyone's individual rights at the expense of profit because the idea is inherently ludicrous, taking into account the nature of a free enterprise. But the business's power to potentially infringe on the rights of anyone is held in check by a functional government. Conversely, while the idea of a business abandoning profit for the sake of liberty is silly, the idea of a government abandoning liberty for the sake of ANYTHING is dangerous. The sole purpose of the government is the guardianship of the personal liberties of they that the government represents. The assumption of any private property for the sake of anything other than the protection of liberty is an evil act of a corrupt government because the our republic is not meant to enforce the will of the majority on the minority but rather to protect the liberty of the minority from the will of the majority.

@tailboarder: "Communism is a farce. No private property???"

By 'no private property' communists mean that economy should not be under the control of private firms and wealthy individuals. It doesn't mean the state claims ownership of your pencil, or your shoes, or your Star Wars figurines, or whatever. More generally, I don't see how communism is a farce any more than any other system.

"Before saying anything read the communist manifesto."

I've read it.

"Socialism is designed to encourage corruption and eliminate choice..."

On what basis do you argue that socialism is DESIGNED to encourage corruption? This seems a ludicrous claim. I would counter by saying that capitalism is designed to encourage greed and selfishness.

@gmvera07: "The sole purpose of the government is the guardianship of the personal liberties of they that the government represents"

So the government has no responsibility to ensure that people are fed and clothed, and have somewhere to live? I would argue that government DOES have this responsibility - indeed a responsibility to oversee the economy to the extent that all productive citizens have a decent basic standard of living. Otherwise what's the point of having organised society at all, if we can't look after each other on at least a basic level?

"The assumption of any private property for the sake of anything other than the protection of liberty is an evil act"

I would argue the opposite. Allowing private individuals to amass property and wealth is an evil act.