Capitalism is a system based on greed. It has taken one of the Seven Deadly Sins and has made it a virtue. Capitalism implied we distribute power in our society via capital. Any formational system, like capitalism, communism, democracy, theocracy, etc, etc, rests on one underlying truth, and that truth is what all subsequent value is based on. Capitalism's underlying truth is that capital itself depends what is morally right or wrong. When we are presented with a moral problem in society, the biggest problem is often the cost of fixing it in dollars, as if the lives and efforts of human beings can be measured in something like dollars.

Greed has always existed as a negative character trait. Capitalism has came along, turned greed into a virtue, and our society has been changing ever since to reflect it.

That is why the bourgeoisie class is the most revolutionary class in history thus for, they've transformed the entire world into their image and have exposed man's relation to his fellow man in the form of naked self-interest. Some people are winners in this, like us, but our cushy rights and minimum wages and weekends and overtime come at the price of our worse labor being exported to places with no concept of right, where wage-slaves toil chained to machines making our clothes, toys, shoes, etc.

Is there any part of this analysis that is faulty?

Theocracy is a society ruled by religion. Not by god.

A meaningless distinction in this conversation I think. We are talking about something that happened within the lifetime of the ontological argument. The idea is rule by god, through his laws, regardless of how they are revealed, and not the positive law of man.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 10 2014 12:05pm

I'm not suggesting how we currently operate (rather, always have for the most part) is something I find that goes against what you speak of, but I do not really see why you put all the weight of our continuous errors on the idea of Capitalism alone. What is Capitalism more than choice (slavery, as we operate, but try and push our corruption of the idea aside - and think of it as a seperate, uncorrupted, idea)? Why instead of pushing to change the economic system itself, do we not try and change each person's system of thought on subjects of greed, and helping those who struggle?


I don't know.
I wish our tax distribution was completely revised and our foreign affairs cut out and education to be top priority, and taxes continuously lowered as our society becomes intelligent enough to continue progress without them, but I really wish to know what you're ideas and wishes are in terms of change and getting back on track.

The Nobel Prize lost its credibility long ago. If someone awarded that "prize" to me, I would spit on it. So… this "news" isn't newsworthy. Sorry, pal.

Don't know if I'd spit on it... it's a lot of money. I would probably mention how ridiculous it is in my acceptance speech though.

Definitely not the science ones, but I agree with you to some degree, the peace prize just means you know the right people. See Obama.

Some of them are good though. Obama in 2009, the EU in 2012, and Gore in 2006? were terrible though. I understand and appreciate that Gore spreads awareness regarding climate change, but it's not really promoting peace...

To me, in order to get the prize, you have to be a leader that dedicates his entire career to peace or you have to be in the trenches like this young woman is.

Yea, the science Nobel Prizes are still extremely prestigious and usually reserved for seriously amazing work.

Agreed. But the peace prize has been a symbolic one for a long time.

Malala definitely deserves it though, an example all Islamic girls should strive for. No submission.