The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[PsychoSerenity]

Incidentally, the massive gains in living standards are not all down to capitalism. They are mainly down to mechanisation and technology. Having said that, capitalism has played an important part in that, so it's clearly an important part of the mix. But capitalism on it's own, without the technology explosion, wouldn't have produced much improvement in living standards.

Capitalism is entirely responsible for both the massive gains in living standard and mechanization as well as technology. Without investment capital and the promise of a free market for the mechanisms and goods produced with them, neither the mechanisms to produce the goods, nor the goods themselves, would exist.

Entirely responsible? That's quite a claim. Looking at how science and education has been funded over the last couple of centuries, I'd suggest that most of the advancements made in science, technology and education, happened in spite of capitalism, not because of it. Research for the sake of research is an inherently risky investment - there's no guarantee of any profit, and even if there eventually is, even with patent laws, there's no guarantee that the people who profit will be the initial investors.

[Coito ergo sum]

When you said this, "You can worship the selfish instinct if you like. Run society by pandering to selfishness, and you end up with a great life for the few, and misery for the many," I thought you were referring to capitalism. If not, then I stand corrected.

Edit: by the way, I never said I was a great debater.

I was referring of course to capitalism unfettered by any socialism. And making the point that both capitalism and socialism were being blended in the successful modern economies.

That hardly justifies you claiming "You brought it up, claiming that capitalism meant misery for the many..."

I wouldn't have said that, I don't believe that, and it's clearly not what I said or claimed.

Not "clearly" - but, I accept your clarification. To the extent I misunderstood what you were saying, I believe I now understand.

Edit: by the way, I never said I was a great debater.

And I never said that you did.

Pretension: A claim or the assertion of a claim to something.

I assume, when you write, that you are using the English language according to standard English usage. You said I had pretensions to being a great debater. That means I claimed or asserted to being a great debater. If I didn't say it, then how can you say that I claimed or asserted to be a great debater? When did I make that pretension?

Well, if you retract your statement, fine. You tell me, though. Apparently, you're using a different dictionary than I am.

[mistermack]

Seth, find where I said exactly : "that capitalism meant misery for the many..."

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word exactly. If you don't understand a simple word of English, it's not surprising you don't understand much else.

( I'm being very generous in not saying you lied by the way )

Was my ACTUAL post so good that you had to falsify it to find fault? Quoting some of my actual words afterwards doesn't excuse the fact that you falsely claimed I said something that I did not.

[mistermack]

Pretension: A claim or the assertion of a claim to something.

I assume, when you write, that you are using the English language according to standard English usage. You said I had pretensions to being a great debater. That means I claimed or asserted to being a great debater. If I didn't say it, then how can you say that I claimed or asserted to be a great debater? When did I make that pretension?

Well, if you retract your statement, fine. You tell me, though. Apparently, you're using a different dictionary than I am.

There is nothing to retract. Look again at what I said. It's not what you quoted.
If you quote someone, it's down to you to do it right.
Don't change what I said, and expect me to retract.

Read it again, and perhaps you might like to retract. I don't mind if you don't, but in the interests of truth and accuracy, I thought you might like to.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, find where I said exactly : "that capitalism meant misery for the many..."

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word exactly. If you don't understand a simple word of English, it's not surprising you don't understand much else.

( I'm being very generous in not saying you lied by the way )

Was my ACTUAL post so good that you had to falsify it to find fault? Quoting some of my actual words afterwards doesn't excuse the fact that you falsely claimed I said something that I did not.

I'm not Seth, but if you're talking to me, I've already said this:

When you said this, "You can worship the selfish instinct if you like. Run society by pandering to selfishness, and you end up with a great life for the few, and misery for the many," I thought you were referring to capitalism. If not, then I stand corrected.

If you would clarify exactly what you were referring to there, I'd appreciate it. I thought it was capitalism that you thought was selfish and that capitalism was "pandering to selfishness." I already said I stood corrected on that. It's just not clear to me what you're referring to. It seemed like capitalism, but apparently it wasn't. Please clarify, if it's not too much trouble.

[mistermack]

Please clarify, if it's not too much trouble.

No trouble. I WAS replying to Seth, not you. If you read Seth's post, you should see the context.
I did mean Seth, not you in that reply.

[Seth]

Incidentally, the massive gains in living standards are not all down to capitalism. They are mainly down to mechanisation and technology. Having said that, capitalism has played an important part in that, so it's clearly an important part of the mix. But capitalism on it's own, without the technology explosion, wouldn't have produced much improvement in living standards.

Capitalism is entirely responsible for both the massive gains in living standard and mechanization as well as technology. Without investment capital and the promise of a free market for the mechanisms and goods produced with them, neither the mechanisms to produce the goods, nor the goods themselves, would exist.

Entirely responsible? That's quite a claim. Looking at how science and education has been funded over the last couple of centuries, I'd suggest that most of the advancements made in science, technology and education, happened in spite of capitalism, not because of it. Research for the sake of research is an inherently risky investment - there's no guarantee of any profit, and even if there eventually is, even with patent laws, there's no guarantee that the people who profit will be the initial investors.

Capitalism creates the economic climate in which basic research and innovation can flourish because capitalism provides the necessary profits and therefore excess capital that can be diverted to basic scientific research that might be speculative.

I also note that religion, specifically the Catholic church, was the primary supporter of education and science for an awfully long time. Most of the top colleges in the US were founded by churches. And churches don't tax people to support those educational institutions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"And churches don't tax people to support those educational institutions."

[Seth]

Seth, find where I said exactly : "that capitalism meant misery for the many..."

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word exactly. If you don't understand a simple word of English, it's not surprising you don't understand much else.

( I'm being very generous in not saying you lied by the way )

Was my ACTUAL post so good that you had to falsify it to find fault? Quoting some of my actual words afterwards doesn't excuse the fact that you falsely claimed I said something that I did not.

I'm not Seth, but if you're talking to me, I've already said this:

When you said this, "You can worship the selfish instinct if you like. Run society by pandering to selfishness, and you end up with a great life for the few, and misery for the many," I thought you were referring to capitalism. If not, then I stand corrected.

If you would clarify exactly what you were referring to there, I'd appreciate it. I thought it was capitalism that you thought was selfish and that capitalism was "pandering to selfishness." I already said I stood corrected on that. It's just not clear to me what you're referring to. It seemed like capitalism, but apparently it wasn't. Please clarify, if it's not too much trouble.

I agree with you CES. It was quite clear to me that he was referencing capitalism from the context of his post, not to mention the many other times he's railed against capitalism. Like this comment from a couple of posts ago: "I was referring of course to capitalism unfettered by any socialism."

So it seems a lame and rather self-serving bit of obfuscation to now claim that he wasn't referring to capitalism versus communism (or socialism)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, where do churches get their money from?

[Seth]

Seth, where do churches get their money from?

Voluntary donations and investments in the US. They have no power to tax, nor can they receive government funds for their sectarian work. That would be unconstitutional. I've heard rumor that the Church of England gets some tax money, but that's just the stupidity of the Brits at work.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, where do churches get their money from?

Voluntary donations and investments in the US. They have no power to tax, nor can they receive government funds for their sectarian work. That would be unconstitutional. I've heard rumor that the Church of England gets some tax money, but that's just the stupidity of the Brits at work.

So, if folks don't give to the church, they're going to hell. This is not a tax, of course, it's a voluntary donation. Or go to hell. Gotcha.

[Seth]

Seth, where do churches get their money from?

Voluntary donations and investments in the US. They have no power to tax, nor can they receive government funds for their sectarian work. That would be unconstitutional. I've heard rumor that the Church of England gets some tax money, but that's just the stupidity of the Brits at work.

So, if folks don't give to the church, they're going to hell. This is not a tax, of course, it's a voluntary donation. Or go to hell. Gotcha.

No church in the US I'm aware of says "pay up or go to hell," not even the Catholic church. If you have evidence (credible, critically robust evidence) to the contrary, rather than smelly ex-recto assertions, I'll be happy to give them due consideration.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, where do churches get their money from?

Voluntary donations and investments in the US. They have no power to tax, nor can they receive government funds for their sectarian work. That would be unconstitutional. I've heard rumor that the Church of England gets some tax money, but that's just the stupidity of the Brits at work.

So, if folks don't give to the church, they're going to hell. This is not a tax, of course, it's a voluntary donation. Or go to hell. Gotcha.

No church in the US I'm aware of says "pay up or go to hell," not even the Catholic church. If you have evidence (credible, critically robust evidence) to the contrary, rather than smelly ex-recto assertions, I'll be happy to give them due consideration.

"Evidence"? Your kind of evidence back at you, then.

[John_fi_Skye]

I think an ancient Roman (I know these things became more relaxed in the mediaeval period) would probably have preferred, "e recto".