I thought we were all on the same page with basic stuff like this, so it comes as an enormous, unpleasant shock to learn that in some cases, apparently, we're not. I definitely think we need to be, however, so I'll lay out my understanding and others can agree or lay out their contrary ones as the feeling moves them.
Wealth is the means to sustain and perhaps improve the conditions of life. Food and shelter are wealth, money is not. Money is at best a token of wealth, because by itself it will not sustain life for even a moment.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
Capital is wealth in excess of current requirements. Polynesian societies use yams as wealth--if they raise more yams than they need, they put the excess into storage so that, when they want to build something or have bad weather or some other need, they can stop farming for awhile and still eat.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
Capitalism is a system based on the idea that capital accumulation is an overarching good. In European-derived cultures, the propagandised meaning of capitalism is always private-property capitalism. The Polynesian yam cultures practice the communal-property kind. Private-property capitalism is competitive and predatory; public-property capitalism is cooperative and sharing.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
Socialism is a system based on the idea that ownership of productive wealth should be distributed equally across the society, so that everyone has the right to an equal share in its productions. The definition of socialism has changed with time and experience from an idealised one of a centrally-planned and managed economy to a more cautious one that favors distributed planning and management. Many, possibly even most, socialists now accept that state socialism could just as well be called state capitalism or fascism.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
Religions are systems of ethical beliefs ascribed to and allegedly mandated by one or more supernatural beings.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, etc are all religions. Secular Humanism, while lacking a supernatural being to blame, is at the same level of abstraction as religion.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
The Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Communion, the Mormon Church, etc. are all political organisations. Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Mormonism, etc. are not.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
The map is not the territory, and the claim is not the reality. People routinely claim to speak for and with the supernatural being(s). Only rarely -vanishingly so- does the behavior of the claimant suggest altruistic motives.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
All non-trivial ethical systems, whether religious or not, enjoin their believers against abusing others. That injunction is always the Number One requirement (after belief in the supernatural being(s), for religious systems). Unless we're willing to accept that claims create reality out of nothing, then anyone who does not obey that Number One tenet cannot possibly be a real member of the religion no matter what they claim or who agrees with them.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
Turning the spotlight on the misdeeds of one group is a divide-and-conquer tool beloved of the ruling class. Talking, e.g., about those who "rob you with a six-gun" while ignoring those who "rob you with a fountain pen" is deeply propagandistic and serves only ruling-class interests.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
Turning the spotlight on the misdeeds of the powerless is particularly odious. It's beyond the pale to, e.g., criticise suicide bombing when that's the only weapon the people have.
[/*:m:3swdh1gx]
Seeking to justify a predetermined opinion by always seeking something to blame (or, mutatis mutandis, praise) -- critisising poor results when intentions were good, or poor intentions that somehow yielded good results, or the speed or cost or something else when both intentions and results are good -- is odious except when done consciously as a tactic, and not so swell even then. [/*:m:3swdh1gx]

Your turn.

I thought we were all on the same page with basic stuff like this, so it comes as an enormous, unpleasant shock to learn that in some cases, apparently, we're not. I definitely think we need to be, however, so I'll lay out my understanding and others can agree or lay out their contrary ones as the feeling moves them.
Wealth is the means to sustain and perhaps improve the conditions of life. Food and shelter are wealth, money is not. Money is at best a token of wealth, because by itself it will not sustain life for even a moment.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
Capital is wealth in excess of current requirements. Polynesian societies use yams as wealth--if they raise more yams than they need, they put the excess into storage so that, when they want to build something or have bad weather or some other need, they can stop farming for awhile and still eat.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
Capitalism is a system based on the idea that capital accumulation is an overarching good. In European-derived cultures, the propagandised meaning of capitalism is always private-property capitalism. The Polynesian yam cultures practice the communal-property kind. Private-property capitalism is competitive and predatory; public-property capitalism is cooperative and sharing.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
Socialism is a system based on the idea that ownership of productive wealth should be distributed equally across the society, so that everyone has the right to an equal share in its productions. The definition of socialism has changed with time and experience from an idealised one of a centrally-planned and managed economy to a more cautious one that favors distributed planning and management. Many, possibly even most, socialists now accept that state socialism could just as well be called state capitalism or fascism.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
Religions are systems of ethical beliefs ascribed to and allegedly mandated by one or more supernatural beings.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, etc are all religions. Secular Humanism, while lacking a supernatural being to blame, is at the same level of abstraction as religion.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
The Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Communion, the Mormon Church, etc. are all political organisations. Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Mormonism, etc. are not.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
The map is not the territory, and the claim is not the reality. People routinely claim to speak for and with the supernatural being(s). Only rarely -vanishingly so- does the behavior of the claimant suggest altruistic motives.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
All non-trivial ethical systems, whether religious or not, enjoin their believers against abusing others. That injunction is always the Number One requirement (after belief in the supernatural being(s), for religious systems). Unless we're willing to accept that claims create reality out of nothing, then anyone who does not obey that Number One tenet cannot possibly be a real member of the religion no matter what they claim or who agrees with them.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
Turning the spotlight on the misdeeds of one group is a divide-and-conquer tool beloved of the ruling class. Talking, e.g., about those who "rob you with a six-gun" while ignoring those who "rob you with a fountain pen" is deeply propagandistic and serves only ruling-class interests.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
Turning the spotlight on the misdeeds of the powerless is particularly odious. It's beyond the pale to, e.g., criticise suicide bombing when that's the only weapon the people have.
[/*:m:i487vlxr]
Seeking to justify a predetermined opinion by always seeking something to blame (or, mutatis mutandis, praise) -- critisising poor results when intentions were good, or poor intentions that somehow yielded good results, or the speed or cost or something else when both intentions and results are good -- is odious except when done consciously as a tactic, and not so swell even then. [/*:m:i487vlxr]

Your turn.

Well, theres kind of a grey area as I see it. If you are too lax in your definitions, some will abuse that opening to contort things in ways to suit their own agenda. If you try to be too rigorous, you end up realizing that there is such an imprecise nature to the things you are defining, that you will never achieved the desired degree of formalism. My opinion only.

Secondly, there are a lot of crazy socialists (or socialist talkers) out there who claim that it was external forces that drove state-run Communism to become an abusive authoritarian system, and thus socialism has never truly been implemented in the modern-day. Or something like that..its not my argument, I'm just trying to sum it up. So I at least superficially disagree with:


Many, possibly even most, socialists now accept that state socialism could just as well be called state capitalism or fascism.

Your turn.


Wealth is the means to sustain and perhaps improve the conditions of life. Food and shelter are wealth, money is not. Money is at best a token of wealth, because by itself it will not sustain life for even a moment.
Agreed. Labor creates Capital, is superior to it, and deserves the higher consideration. Labor is the source of all wealth.


Capital is wealth in excess of current requirements. Polynesian societies use yams as wealth--if they raise more yams than they need, they put the excess into storage so that, when they want to build something or have bad weather or some other need, they can stop farming for awhile and still eat.
Agreed.


Capitalism is a system based on the idea that capital accumulation is an overarching good. In European-derived cultures, the propagandised meaning of capitalism is always private-property capitalism. The Polynesian yam cultures practice the communal-property kind. Private-property capitalism is competitive and predatory; public-property capitalism is cooperative and sharing.
Agreed. Beyond that, capitalism dictates that accumulation of capital is the only good.


Socialism is a system based on the idea that ownership of productive wealth should be distributed equally across the society, so that everyone has the right to an equal share in its productions. The definition of socialism has changed with time and experience from an idealised one of a centrally-planned and managed economy to a more cautious one that favors distributed planning and management. Many, possibly even most, socialists now accept that state socialism could just as well be called state capitalism or fascism.
Disagree.


Religions are systems of ethical beliefs ascribed to and allegedly mandated by one or more supernatural beings.
Disagree strongly


Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, etc are all religions. Secular Humanism, while lacking a supernatural being to blame, is at the same level of abstraction as religion.
Partially agree. Secular humanists routinely talk about “luck” and “Karma” and “Mother Earth” and other invisible phenomena the same way overtly religious people do about God. You can take the person out of the religion, but you can't take the religion out of the person.


The Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Communion, the Mormon Church, etc. are all political organisations. Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Mormonism, etc. are not.
Disagree. States and political movements no longer derive authority from the Catholic church, nor from the Episcopal Communion. States and political movements do continue to derive authority from the institutions of Islam and the Mormon church and other Protestant sects. In the case of Protestant Dominionism, the adherents are part of a political movement as much as they are a part of a religious movement, and that political involvement informs the institution and not the other way around.


The map is not the territory, and the claim is not the reality. People routinely claim to speak for and with the supernatural being(s). Only rarely -vanishingly so- does the behavior of the claimant suggest altruistic motives.
Don't know what this means. God told Mother Teresa to take a vow of poverty and dedicate her life to the least among us, and she did. I don't know how much more altruistic you can get. This is true of at least 9 out of 10 Catholic sisters who claim to be in communion with God, in my personal experience.


All non-trivial ethical systems, whether religious or not, enjoin their believers against abusing others. That injunction is always the Number One requirement (after belief in the supernatural being(s), for religious systems). Unless we're willing to accept that claims create reality out of nothing, then anyone who does not obey that Number One tenet cannot possibly be a real member of the religion no matter what they claim or who agrees with them.
Don't understand this one, either. The Carthaginians worshiped the gods of pillage and conquest, and didn't enjoin the followers against abusing others.


Turning the spotlight on the misdeeds of one group is a divide-and-conquer tool beloved of the ruling class. Talking, e.g., about those who "rob you with a six-gun" while ignoring those who "rob you with a fountain pen" is deeply propagandistic and serves only ruling-class interests.
Agreed.

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from off the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.
The poor and wretched don't escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.


Turning the spotlight on the misdeeds of the powerless is particularly odious. It's beyond the pale to, e.g., criticise suicide bombing when that's the only weapon the people have.
Agree and disagree. Blaming the powerless is odious, yes. That doesn't preclude criticizing the tactics of the powerless on either practical or moral grounds.


Seeking to justify a predetermined opinion by always seeking something to blame (or, mutatis mutandis, praise) -- critisising poor results when intentions were good, or poor intentions that somehow yielded good results, or the speed or cost or something else when both intentions and results are good -- is odious except when done consciously as a tactic, and not so swell even then.
Not sure I understand.

We agree on politics, and disagree on religion and on the way to describe socialism.

Secondly, there are a lot of crazy socialists (or socialist talkers) out there who claim that it was external forces that drove state-run Communism to become an abusive authoritarian system, and thus socialism has never truly been implemented in the modern-day. Or something like that..its not my argument, I'm just trying to sum it up. So I at least superficially disagree with:


Many, possibly even most, socialists now accept that state socialism could just as well be called state capitalism or fascism.
Well, I can agree with the part about how it's never really been implemented. But there appears to be fairly solid evidence, derived in part from corporations, that the problem is non-algorithmic, and that therefore no proper implementation is possible in the foreseeable future.

Your turn.


Socialism is a system based on the idea that ownership of productive wealth should be distributed equally across the society, so that everyone has the right to an equal share in its productions. The definition of socialism has changed with time and experience from an idealised one of a centrally-planned and managed economy to a more cautious one that favors distributed planning and management. Many, possibly even most, socialists now accept that state socialism could just as well be called state capitalism or fascism.
Disagree.

How?


Religions are systems of ethical beliefs ascribed to and allegedly mandated by one or more supernatural beings.

Disagree strongly

How?


You can take the person out of the religion, but you can't take the religion out of the person.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise people are 'in religion.'


The Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Communion, the Mormon Church, etc. are all political organisations. Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Mormonism, etc. are not.

Disagree. States and political movements no longer derive authority from the Catholic church, nor from the Episcopal Communion.

Does their practical impotence politically render them no longer political animals? Is this like the, uh, 'unconventional' idea that when a woman stops menstruating she is no longer a woman?


The map is not the territory, and the claim is not the reality. People routinely claim to speak for and with the supernatural being(s). Only rarely -vanishingly so- does the behavior of the claimant suggest altruistic motives.

Don't know what this means.

Me neither.


All non-trivial ethical systems, whether religious or not, enjoin their believers against abusing others. That injunction is always the Number One requirement (after belief in the supernatural being(s), for religious systems). Unless we're willing to accept that claims create reality out of nothing, then anyone who does not obey that Number One tenet cannot possibly be a real member of the religion no matter what they claim or who agrees with them.

Don't understand this one, either. The Carthaginians worshiped the gods of pillage and conquest, and didn't enjoin the followers against abusing others.

Me neither, in particular the first part of this sentence: "Unless we're willing to accept that claims create reality out of nothing, then anyone who does not obey that Number One tenet cannot possibly be a real member of the religion no matter what they claim or who agrees with them."

I think this might be saying 'Show me the fruit' and is just a kinda granola crunchy way to try and respect and get in touch with believers. Religion, perhaps more than most human created institutions is a complex matter. I have no problem believing some very real Christians, Muslims and assorted appreciators of various sky-fairies are at once also rotten motherfuckers. Faith is big tent like that. Its all in the interpretation. Why put believers on a pedestal? What does that do for the working class politically?


Turning the spotlight on the misdeeds of one group is a divide-and-conquer tool beloved of the ruling class. Talking, e.g., about those who "rob you with a six-gun" while ignoring those who "rob you with a fountain pen" is deeply propagandistic and serves only ruling-class interests.

Agreed.

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from off the goose.

Mmm Hmm


Turning the spotlight on the misdeeds of the powerless is particularly odious. It's beyond the pale to, e.g., criticise suicide bombing when that's the only weapon the people have.

Agree and disagree. Blaming the powerless is odious, yes. That doesn't preclude criticizing the tactics of the powerless on either practical or moral grounds.

I think we should discuss suicide bombing above board and out in the open. Maybe something as unpolitical as a war tactic will be a good sandbox to practice *deliberating* in, occasional exposed cat poo fully expected.


Seeking to justify a predetermined opinion by always seeking something to blame (or, mutatis mutandis, praise) -- critisising poor results when intentions were good, or poor intentions that somehow yielded good results, or the speed or cost or something else when both intentions and results are good -- is odious except when done consciously as a tactic, and not so swell even then.

Not sure I understand.

Pretty darn sure I don't...

there appears to be fairly solid evidence, derived in part from corporations, that the problem is non-algorithmic, and that therefore no proper implementation is possible in the foreseeable future.

What more can you offer on this important perspective?

I'll try to clarify the parts that weren't understood.

The RC and other churches are political organisations not in the sense of being governments or quasi-governments, but rather in the sense that they're organisations composed of people, fixed in time and place, and their behavior changes accordingly. The religions, on the other hand, are canonical and abstract. Their canons rarely change, though the interpretations of the canons quite often do since the interpretations are made by the officials of the respective political organisation. So it's imprecise at best to talk about 'what Catholocism does'. What's done is done by the church officials then extant in the name of the religion, but not by the religion. The religion is innocent, if an abstraction can be innocent.



'The map is not the territory' comes from Korzybski's general semantics. Symbols are not the things they symbolise except ...er, symbolically. A claim (of divinely-granted infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, for example), like a symbol, is not the thing itself. So for example, Robertson claiming that God gives him the inside dope on the future is not the same as God giving Robertson the inside dope on the future. Just because he says so doesn't make it so. The claim is not the reality. Similarly, the Taliban fascist who claims that Islam demands that women be stoned to death for not wearing the burqa is not speaking for Islam or Muhammad (saawa), he's only revealing how depraved and psychopathic he himself is.



This bit: "anyone who does not obey that Number One tenet cannot possibly be a real member of the religion no matter what they claim or who agrees with them." is about the qualifications for membership in a community. If the person who is accepted as creating the canon says that you gotta jump through a hoop to belong, then anyone who fails to jump through the hoop IPSO FACTO does not belong! People coming along later don't get to say "it doesn't matter", the reason being that the one who set up the rules said that it damned well DOES matter. So if you don't want to jump through the hoop you can claim that it doesn't matter, and you can claim to be a member of the community anyway, but like the claim of divine infallibility, it's just a claim, not a reality. Anyone who wants to help non-jumpers evade the rule probably have an agenda of their own!
(PPLE asks "Why put believers on a pedestal? What does that do for the working class politically?". I think I answered that in one of my responses to Wolf: it's at the very least good tactics to say that the people we want to work with are the real keepers of the flame. We can buy ourselves nothing but grief by saying the opposite.)



The "predetermined opinion" bit was another of Dr Berne's insights. It's the same thing, only unpacked, that Galbraith said with his "faced with the choice of changing our mind or proving that we needn't, most of us get busy on the proof". Berne's point is that too often we behave in gamey, inauthentic ways because we don't withhold judgement til the facts are in, we do the judgement part upfront and then interpret the facts to fit. We prefer to "save the hypothesis" rather than be honest scientists.

I hope that helps.




(Apropos the non-algorithmic nature of the problem of planning, I thought I could find references on the web, but all I could find is cap-lib crap. A big part of the evidence discussed was that companies fail even though the people involved are, overtly at least, highly motivated to succeed and the number of variables involved is microscopic compared to the number in a major national economy.)