The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[mistermack]

Churches get a huge tax break by posing as supposed charities.
It's in their financial interest to maintain the fiction by getting involved in education.
And the REAL incentive is that they can indoctrinate their young captives at the most impressionable age.

The tax payer ends up footing nearly all of the bill. Very little of the money for church-sponsored education comes from collections and donations.

In Britain, church schools get practically the same state funding as state schools. And the churches pay practically no tax.

There is nothing charitable about any of it. It's all self-interest.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Churches get a huge tax break by posing as supposed charities.
It's in their financial interest to maintain the fiction by getting involved in education.
And the REAL incentive is that they can indoctrinate their young captives at the most impressionable age.

The tax payer ends up footing nearly all of the bill. Very little of the money for church-sponsored education comes from collections and donations.

In Britain, church schools get practically the same state funding as state schools. And the churches pay practically no tax.

There is nothing charitable about any of it. It's all self-interest.

"Donations" are actually a guilt tax.

[apophenia]

I know if someone put a gun to my head and said, "You can give me your money or not, I don't care," I wouldn't consider my handing over my money "voluntary." The Church has represented itself as the gatekeeper to eternal bliss (or suffering), particularly Catholicism which held the keys to the kingdom in the eucharist, baptism and confession and other "spiritual technologies" — indulgences anybody? I would consider the active promulgation of that threat through childhood education and weekly re-education seminars as nothing short of active extortion of money from vulnerable populations. It's no different than the communist regimes in the PRC using the threat of "re-education" to enforce compliance with the regime's wishes. Or the perpetual threat under Stalin and Lenin, where all you could do was "guess" how to avoid suffering and death. Sure, you don't have to comply, you can voluntarily board the train to Siberia, or die in a re-education center, but really, is that a free choice?

A minor point aside from this. It's not really a fair comparison to hold up the failures of communism against the success of capitalism in the west as the early communist states started from a hobbled position — both Russia and China were incredibly poor and backward countries prior to communism — expecting comparable gains from such disparate starting points is unreasonable. I'm not suggesting communism is a good system, only that comparisons must take these factors and others into account unless one is simply content to compare apples to oranges as if they were apples to apples. Moreover, I suspect it was the backwardness and suffering of their populations, perhaps fueled by envy of other nations, which allowed communism to take hold and flourish. When you're drowning, you're less picky about the rope that's thrown to you. I rather suspect, aside from my personal opinion that communism is a crackpot theory, that desperation of these populations left them vulnerable to "gambling" on radical ideas.

Last but not least, I think there needs to be better clarity regarding terminology as the socialism of Marx, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, was merely a prelude to full communism — a scaffolding which once the true communist society was achieved, could be kicked aside and discarded. I think that's a different "socialism" than the socialism which is merely advocating moving the center point of a mixed economy toward — I don't know what word to use here — maybe pseudo-socialist elements in an economy.

[John_fi_Skye]

I know if someone put a gun to my head and said, "You can give me your money or not, I don't care," I wouldn't consider my handing over my money "voluntary." The Church has represented itself as the gatekeeper to eternal bliss (or suffering), particularly Catholicism which held the keys to the kingdom in the eucharist, baptism and confession and other "spiritual technologies" — indulgences anybody? I would consider the active promulgation of that threat through childhood education and weekly re-education seminars as nothing short of active extortion of money from vulnerable populations. It's no different than the communist regimes in the PRC using the threat of "re-education" to enforce compliance with the regime's wishes. Or the perpetual threat under Stalin and Lenin, where all you could do was "guess" how to avoid suffering and death. Sure, you don't have to comply, you can voluntarily board the train to Siberia, or die in a re-education center, but really, is that a free choice?

A minor point aside from this. It's not really a fair comparison to hold up the failures of communism against the success of capitalism in the west as the early communist states started from a hobbled position — both Russia and China were incredibly poor and backward countries prior to communism — expecting comparable gains from such disparate starting points is unreasonable. I'm not suggesting communism is a good system, only that comparisons must take these factors and others into account unless one is simply content to compare apples to oranges as if they were apples to apples. Moreover, I suspect it was the backwardness and suffering of their populations, perhaps fueled by envy of other nations, which allowed communism to take hold and flourish. When you're drowning, you're less picky about the rope that's thrown to you. I rather suspect, aside from my personal opinion that communism is a crackpot theory, that desperation of these populations left them vulnerable to "gambling" on radical ideas.

Last but not least, I think there needs to be better clarity regarding terminology as the socialism of Marx, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, was merely a prelude to full communism — a scaffolding which once the true communist society was achieved, could be kicked aside and discarded. I think that's a different "socialism" than the socialism which is merely advocating moving the center point of a mixed economy toward — I don't know what word to use here — maybe pseudo-socialist elements in an economy.

What a lot of good sense! I don't agree with it all, but it's just so sensible compared to some of the utter garbage we've had on here - from one person in particular - whose posts I now just avoid.

I don't know whether you saw my earlier ones, but what I'm basically saying is I wish there were another way. At the moment, the way our species is, I don't think there's a viable alternative to capitalism, but I'm not convinced that having what you rightly call pseudo-socialist elements in the world economy is going to be enough. And before anybody comes back in with anti-communist platitudes, I KNOW communism isn't what we need: it's been tried, and it's failed, because of the way our species is. But I just wish a way could be found that incentivises people to do right and constructive things because they're right and constructive, not in order to get paid. I wish I could still be around when a big idea that conduces to that comes along, but I'm not convinced I will be.

OK, so I'm a crackpot.

[Coito ergo sum]

A minor point aside from this. It's not really a fair comparison to hold up the failures of communism against the success of capitalism in the west as the early communist states started from a hobbled position — both Russia and China were incredibly poor and backward countries prior to communism — expecting comparable gains from such disparate starting points is unreasonable. I'm not suggesting communism is a good system, only that comparisons must take these factors and others into account unless one is simply content to compare apples to oranges as if they were apples to apples. Moreover, I suspect it was the backwardness and suffering of their populations, perhaps fueled by envy of other nations, which allowed communism to take hold and flourish. When you're drowning, you're less picky about the rope that's thrown to you. I rather suspect, aside from my personal opinion that communism is a crackpot theory, that desperation of these populations left them vulnerable to "gambling" on radical ideas.

Well, western capitalist countries, before capitalism evolved, were dirt-poor serfdoms and feudal societies, and agrarian and poverty stricken, too.

It certainly was the grinding poverty meted out by a monarchy in Russia that made communism seem attractive. It's very simple: people rose up in favor of communism because it offered what appeared to be an improvement over the then state of affairs of near abject slavery where the bulk of the population were held as serfs at near starvation level. The difference is that NOW in rich western social democracies and republics, communism offers a reduction in lifestyle and standard of living to the great bulk of the population.

Does anyone seriously contend that what communism would offer, say, the US and Canada, is a greater, more comfortable standard of living for the average citizen, with more discretionary income, more free time, greater liberty and autonomy and an improved lifestyle? Or, isn't it fair to say that what communists and those that sympathize with communism say today is that we live too good, in "unsustainable lifestyles" which need to be taken down a notch, for the good of the planet, and in the interests of comity and equality with the rest of the planet, 90% of which lives far far below the norm of western Europe, Australia, the US and Canada?

Last but not least, I think there needs to be better clarity regarding terminology as the socialism of Marx, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, was merely a prelude to full communism — a scaffolding which once the true communist society was achieved, could be kicked aside and discarded. I think that's a different "socialism" than the socialism which is merely advocating moving the center point of a mixed economy toward — I don't know what word to use here — maybe pseudo-socialist elements in an economy.

So, define the terms.

This is something that comes up in every discussion of communism. The pro-communist side claims there is some material difference between what has actually been tried and the "true" or as you say "full" communism. So, explain what you're talking about it? What's the difference? What is the "different socialism?"

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

According to you, Seth, it's not up to Gawdzilla to present such evidence:

Your own incredulity and skepticism is no argument against what was written.

The question is, do you have critically robust evidence that what he said isn't true? If not, then the preponderance of the evidence is with Gawdzilla.

I love how you, on one thread, pretend that an affirmative assertion doesn't need "critically robust evidence" and that the statement "I don't believe in the affirmative assertion because the person making the assertion hasn't provided evidence" is unreasonable because you need critically robust evidence that the affirmative assertion isn't true. However, on this thread, you see a writing that makes an assertion and you demand evidence for it, and you don't take on the same obligation to prove the assertion wrong with critically robust evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

Not in a free society, actually. They do collect money from people. However, mere collection of money is not a "tax," because taxes are compulsory.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Yes. If I walk up to someone on the street, and say "give me money, or you'll go to hell," and they give me money, then that is voluntary on their part.

How does the suggestion of sending someone to hell making it "involuntary?"

By that logic - "give me your money, or you'll be a big doo-doo head forever" makes the handing over the money "involuntary." Or, "give me your donations, or you'll be a rude person."

[mistermack]

I know if someone put a gun to my head and said, "You can give me your money or not, I don't care," I wouldn't consider my handing over my money "voluntary." The Church has represented itself as the gatekeeper to eternal bliss (or suffering), particularly Catholicism which held the keys to the kingdom in the eucharist, baptism and confession and other "spiritual technologies" — indulgences anybody? I would consider the active promulgation of that threat through childhood education and weekly re-education seminars as nothing short of active extortion of money from vulnerable populations. It's no different than the communist regimes in the PRC using the threat of "re-education" to enforce compliance with the regime's wishes. Or the perpetual threat under Stalin and Lenin, where all you could do was "guess" how to avoid suffering and death. Sure, you don't have to comply, you can voluntarily board the train to Siberia, or die in a re-education center, but really, is that a free choice?

A minor point aside from this. It's not really a fair comparison to hold up the failures of communism against the success of capitalism in the west as the early communist states started from a hobbled position — both Russia and China were incredibly poor and backward countries prior to communism — expecting comparable gains from such disparate starting points is unreasonable. I'm not suggesting communism is a good system, only that comparisons must take these factors and others into account unless one is simply content to compare apples to oranges as if they were apples to apples. Moreover, I suspect it was the backwardness and suffering of their populations, perhaps fueled by envy of other nations, which allowed communism to take hold and flourish. When you're drowning, you're less picky about the rope that's thrown to you. I rather suspect, aside from my personal opinion that communism is a crackpot theory, that desperation of these populations left them vulnerable to "gambling" on radical ideas.

Last but not least, I think there needs to be better clarity regarding terminology as the socialism of Marx, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, was merely a prelude to full communism — a scaffolding which once the true communist society was achieved, could be kicked aside and discarded. I think that's a different "socialism" than the socialism which is merely advocating moving the center point of a mixed economy toward — I don't know what word to use here — maybe pseudo-socialist elements in an economy.

What a lot of good sense !

What the hell are you doing on Rationalia?

[Hermit]

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

Not in a free society, actually. They do collect money from people. However, mere collection of money is not a "tax," because taxes are compulsory.

The meaning of the word 'tax' is not limited to 'imposts levied by governments'. There is the 'tithe', for example. In some countries these church taxes are collected by governments on the behalf of churches, and remitted to them. On a less formal level, the 'indulgences' Apophenia mentioned a short while ago are quasi-taxes that many theists feel compelled to pay in order to gain access to the pie in the sky when they die.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

Not in a free society, actually. They do collect money from people. However, mere collection of money is not a "tax," because taxes are compulsory.

Nope. They call lotteries voluntary taxes. The churches don't have the secular authority to pass tax laws, but they claim the celestial authority to demand money from you. Then they guilt people into paying them. YMMV

[Coito ergo sum]

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

Not in a free society, actually. They do collect money from people. However, mere collection of money is not a "tax," because taxes are compulsory.

Nope. They call lotteries voluntary taxes. The churches don't have the secular authority to pass tax laws, but they claim the celestial authority to demand money from you. Then they guilt people into paying them. YMMV

Who is they? Not the government and not the law.

Lotteries are not taxes.

Yes, they do make the claim of celestial authority, and they do impose guilt. It's scurrilous and dishonest, yes. But, a "tax?" No.

Tax: (noun) A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, Seth.

[Coito ergo sum]

Okay, Seth.

Dude - a tax is a tax, and a donation i a donation. Why insist on calling it a tax?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, Seth.

Dude - a tax is a tax, and a donation i a donation. Why insist on calling it a tax?

Because not all taxes fit into the limited and formal definition you are trying to force me to use.