(SPOILERS) Dialydd's report

PeterZ wrote: Because many in the west like to think socialism and communism is a morally superior system to capitalism? This butchers you mention had the saving grace to trying till implement that morally superior system while Hitler tried to retain much of capitalism for his version of socialism.

That's my guess anyway.

Why do you equate Communism with Socialism?

Communism is (technically) concerned with ownership of the means of production being invested in the people of a country and managed completely by the government.
Socialism is concerned with the support of the citizens and residents of a country. The ownership of the means of production is, generally in private hands.
Capitalism is more concerned with the expansion of the capital resources of a country with little or no regard to the effects on the population of the country.

DrakBibliophile wrote:I sometimes enjoy a good debate on the American Revolution but I don't think this forum is the place for it.

YES! YES! PLease leave your political opinionizing outta this forum.
Thanks, Drak

IIRC there is forum within the Weber world, something like "Free Range Topics"

Keith_w wrote:

PeterZ wrote: Because many in the west like to think socialism and communism is a morally superior system to capitalism? This butchers you mention had the saving grace to trying till implement that morally superior system while Hitler tried to retain much of capitalism for his version of socialism.

That's my guess anyway.

Why do you equate Communism with Socialism?

Communism is (technically) concerned with ownership of the means of production being invested in the people of a country and managed completely by the government.
Socialism is concerned with the support of the citizens and residents of a country. The ownership of the means of production is, generally in private hands.
Capitalism is more concerned with the expansion of the capital resources of a country with little or no regard to the effects on the population of the country.

Because both Socialism and Communism would both remove the individual's moral obligation to attend to utilizing resources properly. Communism would deny all private ownership so that a select few can make "optimal" decisions on behalf of the rest. Socialism would have government decide how best to take care of its citizens. Under both these systems the moral choices are made by a precious few souls and the remainder are obligated to execute those choices.

That is very much the choice between the CoGA and the CoC. The CoGA asserts that such moral choices are best left to their clergy. The CoC asserts that the clergy simply guides and persuades but the ultimate choice resides in the hearts of the citizens.

The argument isn't really about Socialism or Communism but centralized authority. The CoGA's Inquisition aggregated onto itself the moral agency for all humanity regarding anything that addresses religion. THEY are the ones to decide on behalf of Safehold.

PeterZ wrote:Communism would deny all private ownership so that a select few can make "optimal" decisions on behalf of the rest.

Er, nothing like that. The communism (in basics) deny private ownership on the capital goods. And the communist society was meant to be democratical, at least in theory.

That is very much the choice between the CoGA and the CoC. The CoGA asserts that such moral choices are best left to their clergy. The CoC asserts that the clergy simply guides and persuades but the ultimate choice resides in the hearts of the citizens.

Nothing ever similar. Communism as an economic and social theory did not concerned with morality at all.

The main point of communism theory is that the root of all evil is the artificial inequality in income distribution, based on the private ownership on the capital goods. The founder of communist theory believed that it was possible to create some non-money-based universal system of determination of the worker's quality and productivity. Basically the idea:

- The state is a only owner of main capital goods and the only legal money lender

- The state is democratic, and controlled by elected goverment

- Any citizen of the state is included in some universal system that could adequately evaluate his work (quality, efficiency) and provide him the access to the goods and services, equival to the ammount of his work.

Nothing even near the Church's religious-based capitalistic system.

To deny private ownership is to deny responsibility over the use of capital goods. Whoever acts as owner of those goods has the moral responsibility for how those goods are used. If the state owns the goods, then whoever acts on behalf of the state excercises the moral agency for how those goods are used.

I am addressing the moral consequences for how goods are used, not the legal right over their use.

To deny private ownership is to deny responsibility over the use of capital goods. Whoever acts as owner of those goods has the moral responsibility for how those goods are used. If the state owns the goods, then whoever acts on behalf of the state excercises the moral agency for how those goods are used.

Er, and so? I fail to see you point. The perfectly capitalistic factories in the perfectly capitalistic states made weapons for conquering the other countires, enslavement of their populations and mass genocide. Where was the moral at this times?

PeterZ wrote:I am addressing the moral consequences for how goods are used, not the legal right over their use.

Please. The "moral consequences" for capitalists and workers for a VERY long time was that the capitalists tried to have as much as they could, and the workers tried not to die from exaustion. It took a lot of technical and social progress to change situation (and the fear of workers revolution was one of the stimulus for capitalists to threat the workforse better). Yes, of course there were the exeptions, but they were the exeptions.

EdThomas wrote:

DrakBibliophile wrote:I sometimes enjoy a good debate on the American Revolution but I don't think this forum is the place for it.

YES! YES! PLease leave your political opinionizing outta this forum.
Thanks, Drak

IIRC there is forum within the Weber world, something like "Free Range Topics"

This thread has a life of it's own. RFC could take the wind from the sails with another Snippet. Hint Hint

Dilandu wrote:

To deny private ownership is to deny responsibility over the use of capital goods. Whoever acts as owner of those goods has the moral responsibility for how those goods are used. If the state owns the goods, then whoever acts on behalf of the state excercises the moral agency for how those goods are used.

Er, and so? I fail to see you point. The perfectly capitalistic factories in the perfectly capitalistic states made weapons for conquering the other countires, enslavement of their populations and mass genocide. Where was the moral at this times?

PeterZ wrote:I am addressing the moral consequences for how goods are used, not the legal right over their use.

Please. The "moral consequences" for capitalists and workers for a VERY long time was that the capitalists tried to have as much as they could, and the workers tried not to die from exaustion. It took a lot of technical and social progress to change situation (and the fear of workers revolution was one of the stimulus for capitalists to threat the workforse better). Yes, of course there were the exeptions, but they were the exeptions.

Dilandu,

I am not comparing the relative moral values of capitalism with communism. I am speaking to states usurping the moral agency from the individual. That is something that the series we are reading addresses.

My point was simply that control over goods means the responsibility for how they are used resides with he/she/they who exercise that control. If a state deploys its goods to feed the hungry across the world, does the citizen who does nothing but pay taxes accrue credit for that moral good? If that same state uses its goods to spread chaos, do the citizens of that nation accrue the moral evil?

My point was that good or evil accrue to he/she/they that decide to do good or evil. Nations or governments, like the CoGA and real world dictatorships, that restrict the choices of its citizens too greatly also take away the moral agency from its citizens. That is the ability to choose to be moral.

People, take it elsewhere.

Duckk wrote:People, take it elsewhere.

WHOOPS! Rattled a few cage bars there!