TomPennsylvania3h ago

@Tim Barrus I assume you substituted “Religion” for “Capitalism” in your ‘opium of the people’s paraphrasing of Marx. Marx’s quote is “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Marx viewed Capitalism as a good step in societal evolution, but also as one that would stagnate and ultimately succumb to socialism. His prediction that it would stagnate was based on the assumption that Capitalism would ultimately benefit the rich (e.g., owners of capital) at the expense of the common man (the workers).

Reply37 RecommendShareFlagB. Rothman commented 3 hours agoBB. RothmanNYC3h ago

@Tim Barrus The argument of encouraging laziness is literally the same argument provided by 19th century capitalists in England. Untrue then; untrue now (although you’ll find a small fraction of people who are exceptions for every situation.). Thms. Piketty in his book “Capital” traced the development of capitalism for 2 and a half centuries and found that no matter where it was capital inevitably operated to move money from the worker to the owner and from the owners to government influence. Even in supposedly socialistic countries you can see the effect of money on government and government officials. Without a mechanism to pay or to return to the workers a decent portion of the value they produce, the accumulation of wealth and influence is ever upward to smaller and smaller numbers and to the economic grinding down of workers which leads to discontent and to political instability. Sometimes this is manifested by a flattening out of national creativity or of national low grade depression, but the world is replete with these scenarios. Doesn’t always result in revolution but is always the result of unbridled greed whether it occurs in “capitalist” countries or in ostensively “socialist” nations. The political power moves to the top so long as the remuneration for the product of labor stays flat.

Reply26 RecommendShareFlagWren commented 2 hours agoWWrenMD2h ago

@Tim Barrus I’ve never understood the attitude that people will be lazy with basic handouts, especially when we live in a capitalist and meritocracy that values having and doing all of the fancy things. If these politicians actually talked to folks living on social security and disability they would realize how much they wish they had more money to buy things and experiences, especially for their kids and grandkids. And we’re not even talking exotic getaways - we’re talking about paying for sports camps and a trip to Disney World. Even if a basic income meant that people would stop wasting time and money keeping up with the Joneses, how is that a bad thing when it means that families will spend more time learning and loving together? I always found it hypocritical that the same party who wants women to stay at home in the kitchen raising their kids also doesn’t want to pay single mothers to be able to do so.

Reply29 RecommendShareFlagSmilodon7 commented 2 hours agoSSmilodon7Missouri2h ago

He’s not wrong in that. Pure capitalism ( or pure socialism for that matter) don’t work well on their own.

Reply2 RecommendShareFlagPatricia commented 2 hours agoPPatriciaTempe AZ via Philadelphia PA2h ago

@Tom
Thanks for the historical correction! Anything you want to add to the substance of the posting?

Reply1 RecommendShareFlagSomeGuy commented 5 minutes agoSSomeGuyOhio5m ago

@Tim Barrus “The rich are vile, and beneath contempt.” Some are. Some aren’t. I would not morally equate Rebekah Mercer with Bill Gates. Reforming the tax system in the interest of fairness and addressing child poverty is one answer. But killing-the-kulaks and anarchy are not. Such solutions lead to the absence of morality, replaced by expedience and mass murder. To quote Robert Conquest: ““To congratulate oneself on one’s warm commitment to the environment, or to peace, or to the oppressed, and think no more is a profound moral fault.” Both James Baldwin and Robert Conquest need to be added to educational curriculums nationwide.

ReplyRecommendShareFlagYahoo commented 2 minutes agoYYahooSomerset2m ago

@Tim Barrus I believe the accurate quote is Religion is the opium of the people. Verified is quotes.uk.meanings. Europe is mostly off the opium.

ReplyRecommendShareFlagTim Barrus commented 1 minute ago

michaeltideBothell, WA42m ago

@Tom We could also say that capitalism has become the state religion.

Reply2 RecommendShareFlagThomas commented 42 minutes agoTThomasNew York42m ago

@Wren What they *say* is just excuses for what they *want.* Simply, they want the poor to have less and less, so the rich will have more and more. Smiling liars are paid to invent sophistic reasons to justify it.

Reply1 RecommendShareFlagjk commented 24 minutes agoJjkNYC24m ago

Well said. The rich are the problem and they beware.

ReplyRecommendShareFlagKathleen commented 16 minutes agoKKathleenMichigan16m ago

@Tom Thanks for setting the record straight, I had a hard time figuring out the original post. Marx was right in his analysis in many ways. The problem is that socialism has not been shown to work where it has been tried especially in large countries like the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao. A mix of capitalism and socialism has been shown to work best.

Neither capitalism or socialism are the enemy if we can take the better qualities from both. People who want pure forms of either believe in an ideology. People who believe in the real world take the best examples of both to make things work better.

ReplyRecommendShareFlagTom commented 10 minutes agoTTomPennsylvania10m ago

My take: all ‘isms’ fail society at large, when taken to excess. For economic considerations, greed is the real issue, not the ‘ism’. For political considerations, power hunger is the primary issue, not the ‘ism’. I am leery of anyone who extols or derides one particular ideology in all forms. I don’t care what you call it. There are instances in which capitalist principles benefit society greatly. Likewise for socialist principles. Etc. etc. Can we not just be reasonable people and evaluate the deployment of a principle on the merits? If we disagree philosophically, can we not at least agree to try some options and test them to find clear objective proof of what works? In other words, I’m all for evidence-based policy-making. Something tells me we’re generations away from this, if we ever truly get there though…

ReplyRecommendShareFlagDaniel commented 3 minutes agoDDanielOttawa,Ontario3m ago

@Tim Barrus
Damn straight, Tim!
Words that burn through the screen.
From a single dad who is raising a kid on his own, thank you!

ReplyRecommendShare