Which 'one True God?'

[Hugo]

Lonius,

Socialism is admirable in theory but has never, ever worked in practice. This is because it is an impossible theory. It relies upon every man being of saintly virtue and willing to work extra-hard for his fellow man instead of himself. Christianity (and most other religions) teach us man is not like that. He is born into sin and remains a sinner, and only Christ was truly without sin.

Capitalism recognises that man is a sinner, but harnesses that sin into a system that ends up producing more for the common man than socialism ever has or ever will. Look at the progress of Russia and America since the 18th Century, America epitomising democratic capitalism and Russia first autocratic mercantilism and then autocratic communism. In which country is the average man better off? Of course, it is America, and there was no point in the centuries in between when this was not the case (and don't mention the Depression, because 30m Soviet citizens had starved to death because of Communist stupidities by the time the Depression hit).

Socialism is a broken system that is in denial of reality. That is why it never works. Capitalism recognises the flaws in man and attempts to turn them to the greatest good possible. Christianity and capitalism are perfectly suited.

And we haven't even got around to mentioning free will as it occurs in Christianity and as it is mirrored in capitalist economic liberty yet. Christianity emphasises that charity and goodwill must come from within. It isn't Christian for a Communist state to force charitable actions from those who wouldn't otherwise give them. Capitalism shows their true colours. Furthermore, democratic capitalism allows society and the economy to evolve according to the will of the common men, whereas socialism and indeed, all other forms of government and economy, impose the will of a few "wise" men on the masses. As Christianity teaches us, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, which is why all socialist states that begin with high ideals end up as cesspits of misery and despair, whereas democratic capitalist states such as the USA and Great Britain have remained bastions of liberty and freedom throughout the ages.

[Michael Hardner]

Socialism is a broken system that is in denial of reality. That is why it never works. Capitalism recognises the flaws in man and attempts to turn them to the greatest good possible. Christianity and capitalism are perfectly suited.

Your argument would make perfect sense if it not were the fact that modern capitalism has included elements of socialism in practice. So we're not dealing with a purely capitalist system, as we were in the 18th century.

Socialism realizes that people aren't perfect, and forces them to take care of the most needy members of society through social programs etc.

The west has realized that the healthiest capitalist societies require the well off to fund infrastructure, health care, education, defense etc. North America had some of its best economies in the 1950s and 1960s, when taxes were relatively high. During this period, America built the interstate highway system, state universities, the largest defense force in the world, the space program and so on.

Today, we can hardly afford to maintain these institutions let alone build for the future.

[Hugo]

Your argument would make perfect sense if it not were the fact that modern capitalism has included elements of socialism in practice. So we're not dealing with a purely capitalist system, as we were in the 18th century.

Actually, we never were, even then. Capitalism can only succeed as part of a pluralist system that involves capitalism, political liberty and a moral (religious) society, which was the case in 18th-century Britain and America. I think we are seeing a lot of problems lately because the third is being eroded, but that's my opinion.

The "socialist" elements that you believe you see are actually manifestations of the second and third elements of the tripartite system of democratic capitalism at work. Capitalism has to be tempered by just law and sound ethics, and while those two can strangle capitalism if taken too far, as capitalism can strangle those two, it's a fact that capitalism cannot actually exist without law and ethics. Capitalist democracy does not deal in absolutes and theories as socialism does, it deals with realities, which is why it should not and cannot allow extremes of anything to survive long both for its own good and for the good of the people.

[Michael Hardner]

The "socialist" elements that you believe you see are actually manifestations of the second and third elements of the tripartite system of democratic capitalism at work. Capitalism has to be tempered by just law and sound ethics, and while those two can strangle capitalism if taken too far, as capitalism can strangle those two, it's a fact that capitalism cannot actually exist without law and ethics. Capitalist democracy does not deal in absolutes and theories as socialism does, it deals with realities, which is why it should not and cannot allow extremes of anything to survive long both for its own good and for the good of the people.

Well, if you're including those elements I listed in your definition of capitalist democracy then I do agree with you.

Open capitalist democracy with a balance of power and a guarantee of human rights has proven itself (so far) to be the best way to guarantee a productive and happy society.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

it's a fact that capitalism cannot actually exist without law and ethics.

It is a fact that capitalism is held in check by these two things. It has been quoted previously, 'capitalism is basically economic anarchy, plus the police'. Monopoly laws, labour standards and human rights are all roadblocks to, and not products of, purest capitalism.

I must agree with Mr Hardner, though, that a hybrid system is the best thing that mankind can 'cope' with at this time.

[Hugo]

It is a fact that capitalism is held in check by these two things.

Capitalism also depends on those two things. Without law, there is no point in capital because another can take it by force. Without ethics, there is no point in the free market because incessant lies and deceit will disenchant consumers and dry up supplies, and the whole system comes crashing down. Democratic capitalism is a balance, depending upon each of the three components I mentioned, and if any one gets to be too strong or too weak the whole suffers.

Furthermore, "purest capitalism" is an oxymoron, because as I said, capitalism deals in reality and compromise, not dreams and absolutes. You cannot have pure capitalism because capitalism depends upon impurity to function.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Without law, there is no point in capital because another can take it by force.

This is the essence of land ownership, a fact that enabled the whites to 'cheat' the 'Originals' out of North America. Thank goodness there were no laws(apart from force) when whitey came!

Without ethics, there is no point in the free market because incessant lies and deceit will disenchant consumers and dry up supplies, and the whole system comes crashing down.

Nonsense. Lies and deceit are merely marketing tools, subject to the belief of the consumer. The majority purchase according to the most reputable, and the 'cheapest' must maintain some degree of credibility or they go thy way of the 'snake oil' salesmen. Ethics is an entirely different animal.

because capitalism depends upon impurity to function.

Hence my argument that right-wingers cannot seriously be religious,

According to the theory of the right wing, Jesus must have been the greatest fool that ever lived. He could have opened a 'Loaf and Fish' store with zero overhead, unlimited supply and equally unlimited demand.

[Hugo]

This is the essence of land ownership, a fact that enabled the whites to 'cheat' the 'Originals' out of North America. Thank goodness there were no laws(apart from force) when whitey came!

That is the essence of any ownership. Capitalism and the free exchange and trade that capitalism depends upon has been taken away from the aboriginals because a) most of their lands were just taken and they do not have right of alienation of the lands they have left. Now they are in a pretty sorry state. If they had understood capitalism or been able to exercise it they might be a lot better off.

Nonsense. Lies and deceit are merely marketing tools, subject to the belief of the consumer.

No, it isn't nonsense. You can lie to sell a product, but that'll only work once. Look at adverts. There are no lies, and anything that's a half-truth has small print to tell you so. Advertisers have been caught out by lawsuits too many times to falsify a product. About the worst they do these days is to sell a product based on image or lifestyle, and you have to have a very low opinion of people if you think they'll genuinely buy something because it'll make them Tony Hawk or whatever. Endorsement or indication that a certain product might suit a certain lifestyle isn't a lie.

According to the theory of the right wing, Jesus must have been the greatest fool that ever lived.

As I already said, "self-interest" does not necessarily lie in money or even what's beneficial to oneself. Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, and Mother Theresa all doubtless got personal satisfaction from what they did and felt that they were living worthy lives, and so, in that respect, they were acting at least partly from self-interest. Do you understand now?

[KrustyKidd]

Thank goodness there were no laws(apart from force) when whitey came!

Whitey? I should have reported that post you racist.

As I already said, "self-interest" does not necessarily lie in money or even what's beneficial to oneself. Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, and Mother Theresa all doubtless got personal satisfaction from what they did and felt that they were living worthy lives, and so, in that respect, they were acting at least partly from self-interest. Do you understand now?

Yes Hugo, that is my belief as well. They all acted out of selfishness. Not a stereotyped selfishness but a selfish need to help others. I know that every anti US type here has seen this ad in the states (as it is all over the interstates on billboards) as they travel so extensively there and so get their US insight. It pictures famous people like Winston, Mohamed Ali, Cristopher Reeves and Mother Theresa. The caption on all of them reads "reaching beyond yourself."

And yes, all were selfish, otherwise they would have delegated or faded away into their own pain.

[Galahad]

A law can't make a man more charitable. A change of heart can.

I'm not so sure about that. A cheapskate friend of mine HAD a heart transplant and he's STILL a cheapskate.

[Elder]

[

As I already said, "self-interest" does not necessarily lie in money or even what's beneficial to oneself. Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, and Mother Theresa all doubtless got personal satisfaction from what they did and felt that they were living worthy lives, and so, in that respect, they were acting at least partly from self-interest. Do you understand now?

Yes Hugo, that is my belief as well. They all acted out of selfishness. Not a stereotyped selfishness but a selfish need to help others. I know that every anti US type here has seen this ad in the states (as it is all over the interstates on billboards) as they travel so extensively there and so get their US insight. It pictures famous people like Winston, Mohamed Ali, Cristopher Reeves and Mother Theresa. The caption on all of them reads "reaching beyond yourself."

And yes, all were selfish, otherwise they would have delegated or faded away into their own pain.

If you define selfish as putting what you love first, then I agree. We all have our own priorities, and to these great historical figures the people around them were priority number 1. If you look at it as putting your first priority before anything else, it could be considered selfishness. Otherwise, I'd call it pure and simple love. They loved others more than they loved themselves. Honestly, If you want to define this sort of thing as greed, then I hope you are the greediest person alive. I'm not so sure if I agree with the definition, but I know what you are talking about, and it doesn't sound as evil as thelonius makes greed out to be. It appears you Hugo and KK are talking about something completely different than what thelonius is refering to. Healthy ambition and a desire to make a difference is a wonderful thing. When you add in a complete disregard to the rights and other possessions, then there is a problem. I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of the words "greed" or "selfishness" KK. I usually use them to describe the darker side of self-interest. However, I do know what you are talking about, and I don't disagree with the statements you have used them in.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

I must vehemently disagree.

They all acted out of selfishness.

If you are talking about self-fulfillment, I would still disagree.

Otherwise, I'd call it pure and simple love. They loved others more than they loved themselves.

Elder, you are very much on track here. It is a concept that is obviously beyond KK, and one can't blame him, for it is indeed beyond most. Buddha, Jesus and ilk left 'self' as a factor behind. Not ignored it, not used it for selfish ends, but pursued noble values that did not include self, and thereby equated 'self' to the value of 'all'.

[August1991]

What a sterile, boring debate you have fallen into... Is Greed Human? Are Humans Good? Is Greed Bad?

Do we need religion to keep us in check fromn our evil impulses? Is that what it's all about ultimately? Laws and an internal referee of moral fairness, otherwise we lose the thin veneer of civilisation?

Please, someone, start a new topic with the title "Competition vs. Cooperation" or some such.

[Hugo]

Thelonius,

I believe KK has put things in a way you find difficult to understand because the word "selfish" is ethically loaded. I shall attempt to explain better.

First, democratic capitalism believes in empowering the individual and enabling them to do whatever they wish, with very few limits. For instance, you don't have to work if you don't want to (and you may be asked to bear the consequences of that decision i.e. poverty), but if you do, the gigantic world of work and study is open to you.

Other forms of government and economy don't empower the individual. What you do is not up to you, it's up to the state. In a socialist society, Jesus, Gandhi, or Buddha would never have done anything. They could either take their place on the state tractor factory production line or whatever, or be imprisoned or shot for "parasitic" behaviour since none of them worked. The same goes for inventors such as Edison, Bell, the Wright brothers, and so forth, all of whom have made massive contributions to the standard of living you now enjoy.

Capitalism recognises that individuals very often produce the great leaps in science, engineering, philosophy and spiritualism that help society progress. To socialism, however, "individual" is a dirty word, and individualism is repressed.

Secondly, as religion teaches us, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Socialism refuses to accept this. It believes that a few people can divine what is "best" for humanity, when "best" is extremely subjective, and the course to it is impossible to see in a world of infinite complexity such as the one we live in. This is why socialism always fails, because imposing the dreams of one man or a few on a whole society is wrong.

Democratic capitalism recognises this and empowers individuals to move society in the popular direction by an organic and almost imperceptible movement. This is why, all in all, democratic capitalist societies such as Britain and the USA continue to prosper without any major problems while socialist countries suffer miserably. Even the American Civil War claimed about 1% of the lives that were lost since 1917 in the USSR and since 1950 in the PRC due to government-induced famine and political murder.

Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi or whatever did not leave "self" behind. They acted in ways that made sense to them and their core beliefs. This is what we are getting at. All three of those figures did what they, as an individual, wanted to. Capitalism allows individual acts like that. Socialism does not.

[Black Dog]

Dag. A guy steps away for a while, and comes back to find the same old bunch going round the same old mulberry bush.

Ever notice how the most destitute nations believe in God more than those who have more?

Not true. F'instance, of western, industrial nations, the U.S.A has the highest number of believer. 'course it also has the largest number of folks who believe we've been visisted by space aliens, so there you go.

Capitalism and the free exchange and trade that capitalism depends upon has been taken away from the aboriginals because a) most of their lands were just taken and they do not have right of alienation of the lands they have left. Now they are in a pretty sorry state. If they had understood capitalism or been able to exercise it they might be a lot better off.

Yeah because I'm sure a copy of "The Wealth of Nations" would have saved North America's indigineous peoples from small pox and the Colt Peacemaker.

[Hugo]

Hey, Black Dog. Good to see you again.

Yeah because I'm sure a copy of "The Wealth of Nations" would have saved North America's indigineous peoples from small pox and the Colt Peacemaker.

Interesting how you regard this, because the whole dealings with the aboriginals were strong, good examples of something definitely other than capitalism. Let me illustrate.

Capitalism depends upon free trade. Socialists believe that all trade is conducted for both parties to secure a slice of a pie of limited size and thus, in any trade, one party 'wins' and the other 'loses'. They are wrong. Trade itself makes the pie grow larger, therefore, it is perfectly possible for both parties in a trade agreement to benefit from that agreement and for there to be two 'winners'. This is one of the reasons why capitalists believe that free trade is the best way to secure more wealth and well-being for all people, and why nations engaging in free trade have achieved greater wealth and higher standards of living than those who do not.

Now, if you put your Colt Peacemaker to Sitting Bull's head and demand that he hand over his tribal lands in exchange for some mouldering old blankets or whatever you have lying around, that isn't free trade. It's robbery. If a burglar broke into your house and stole your money and electrical goods, I'm sure you wouldn't think you had been the victim of a capitalist transaction. No, you would have been a victim of a crime, and so were the aboriginals in most cases.

Most aboriginals also held the belief that land could not be owned but merely occupied. Tribal chiefs who sold their land or gave it away were in violation of their own laws and ethics, and were also trading with what was not theirs to trade. As I had said before, capitalism depends upon underpinnings of ethics and law, and where ethics and law fail you will not and cannot have capitalism. In the aboriginal dealings, on both sides ethics and law were not applied, and so those dealings were not capitalist.

[August1991]

capitalism depends upon underpinnings of ethics and law, and where ethics and law fail you will not and cannot have capitalism.

WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG again.

Capitalism only requires property law, and maybe a basic contract law. (Ethics have nothing to do with it.) In the past several thousand years or so, property law has been the bugbear in my opinion. I reckon domesticated dogs played a big role in northern climates. Mathematics elsewhere.

Look, as soon as there is a prize, there will be guys who will want to fight over it. Why? To be top dog, or get the blonde chick in the corner to look.

But cooperation is always better. People achieve much more when they work together. Happy families are the best example. Good government too.

Another example? If I 'own' the prize and to get it, you have to compete on terms of trade (price, number), your efforts produce something other than dead guys fighting over the blonde.

Same story as competition, but with math this time - and property law. (I'm sure we'll manage contract law). Result? Competition is now cooperation.

[Hugo]

Capitalism only requires property law, and maybe a basic contract law.

This cannot be true. Without laws concerning basic human rights, there can be no other laws, including property law, so your statement is self-contradictory. Capitalism cannot function without not just property laws, but laws on human rights, criminal activity of all kinds, limits on the power of church, state and economic interests, and so forth. This is why democratic capitalist nations have large legal establishments and vast codified laws.

But cooperation is always better. People achieve much more when they work together. Happy families are the best example. Good government too.

Certainly. But you forget two things. Firstly, people are self-aware individuals, not ants, so you will only ever get a certain degree of co-operation out of them. On some level they will always compete. Even ant or bee colonies will compete with each other for limited resources.

Secondly, it's another irony that capitalism produces more co-operation and more communal spirit than socialism. Capitalist societies produce a massive amount of free associations: corporations, labour unions, political parties, lobby and activist groups, social clubs, churches, charities etc. Socialist societies never produce a large number of associations and co-operatives because socialism does not encourage co-operation, it encourages laziness, and because where freedom is limited free association will not exist.

Are you familiar with the story of Viktor Belenko? Belenko was a Soviet MiG-25 pilot who, in 1976, flew his aircraft to Japan and defected to the United States. He and his aircraft were brought home on an aircraft carrier and on that carrier he was amazed at how American servicemen co-operated as teams and showed initiative in the course of their work. In his long experience as a Soviet officer, Soviet soldiers generally did not co-operate and did not work autonomously but just hung around until given specific orders by an officer. This experience was repeated by other Soviet defectors. Socialist systems produce an unbelievable apathy in all walks of life. Socialist people neither co-operate nor compete, they just do nothing unless coerced.

Socialist systems remove all incentive for co-operation. Where the state controls all politics, there is no point to political parties or lobby groups. Where all industry is state-owned there is no point in corporations or labour unions. Where religion and social activity are closely regulated by the state there is no point in churches or social clubs. There are no freely associated groups, all co-operatives are coercive and enforced by the state.

Look, as soon as there is a prize, there will be guys who will want to fight over it.

You have not understood. The "prize" is not limited, it can grow, and it can be made "artifically" as well as appearing "naturally". This is why Marx was dead wrong when he predicted that the "contradictions" of capitalism would cause it to tear itself apart. He, like you, did not understand capitalism and economics very well.

[August1991]

Hugo,

I think you and I largely agree. We're just using different words.

Property law is concerned with the definition of what I own and the enforcement of that definition. When you note:

but laws on human rights, criminal activity of all kinds, limits on the power of church, state and economic interests

I think you mean that.

I would add contract law because then it would be possible to trade.

Firstly, people are self-aware individuals, not ants, so you will only ever get a certain degree of co-operation out of them. On some level they will always compete. Even ant or bee colonies will compete with each other for limited resources.

True, people are self-aware (that is, they learn and change). And true, they will always compete. But, it is possible to get them to co-operate honestly. That's what capitalism does.

People compete on price and in the process, they wind up co-operating. And the price keeps them honest too.

The "prize" is not limited, it can grow, and it can be made "artifically" as well as appearing "naturally". This is why Marx was dead wrong when he predicted that the "contradictions" of capitalism would cause it to tear itself apart. He, like you, did not understand capitalism and economics very well.

This last comment made me laugh. Of course it can grow (although people competing for a prize rarely believe that since they usually want to get it first).

But let me carry your idea further. Life is not a sports match with one prize to be won. But that means also that laws are not like the rules of a sports game, and the role of judges is not like a sports referee.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Capitalism cannot function without not just property laws, but laws on human rights, criminal activity of all kinds, limits on the power of church, state and economic interests, and so forth.

History shows this to be utter bunk. Capitalism was borne on, and thrives on, the lack of these things. They only need to exist, and only to a certain degree, in the nation that most derives its profits from the others.

[Hugo]

History shows this to be utter bunk. Capitalism was borne on, and thrives on, the lack of these things.

You have not cited an example because you cannot, since this point is completely false.

Free trade depends upon law and trust (i.e. ethics). Of course, you can find crime in places like the USA or Great Britain, but really, is it anything compared to crimes perpetuated in the USSR or the PRC? Of course not, and in those nations the irony is that the worst crimes were perpetuated by the state that was supposed to free and protect the citizenry from the "evils" of capitalism. I'm sure you are about to rant about the "crimes against humanity" waged by the USA, but until you can show me the mass graves of twenty million American citizens murdered by their government for political dissidence you are, to paraphrase the bard, telling a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Statements such as "capitalism was borne on... the lack of [just laws]" are absolutely absurd. Do you think the infant capitalist nations of Great Britain and the USA did not have just laws? Do you think that other nations, at that time, had far better and more just laws? Perhaps Tsarist Russia? Maybe Imperial China? Possibly the Ottoman Empire? You are talking complete balderdash. I advise you to visit an online encyclopedia and check up on the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

Now, when you have an argument based on either facts or logic, we'll talk. But it seems to me that your views are largely based upon knee-jerk anti-bourgeois sentiment so beloved of the chattering classes, a penchant for certain theories no matter how often empirical observation proves those theories ill-conceived, and a lack of knowledge of history, to whit, a keen eye for the warts of democratic capitalism but seemingly total ignorance of the universal and abject failure and inhuman crimes of socialism.

[August1991]

TheloniusFleabag:

History shows this to be utter bunk. Capitalism was borne on, and thrives on, the lack of these things. They only need to exist, and only to a certain degree, in the nation that most derives its profits from the others.

Capitalism thrives on clear definition of ownership and on prices (contract law, terms of trade, mathematics if you will).

Without ownership, we are all flung into a world of "rent-seeking". Know what this is?

Is "ownership" theft?

How about this idea: Born into this world, we are all thieves of the past. We benefit from fire, penicillin, calculus, written language, electricity - yet, we did nothing to receive these. We are all thieves! But victims too. We will provide to our children yet receive nothing from them.

Theft (and justice) matter much less than waste. Arguably, 'justice' is a subjective word for objective waste.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I advise you to visit an online encyclopedia and check up on the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

I have read them all, none of them 'online'. The last two have no relevance to my argument. In fact, they may even support it.

I also will suggest that you are mistaken to use the word 'socialism' in your arguments. 'Communism' would be a better fit, and more so 'Marxist-Leninist'. Lenin brought the totalitarianism that was not the dream of Marx.

Socialism is, as Mr. Hardner previously pointed out( in a different context), a hybrid system of taxation with the iintent of benefitting all, in a 'controlled' free-enterprise system.

Otherwise, 'free-enterprise' means 'everyman for himself'. The 'right wing' believes that they can function as "responsible anarchists" but I tend to disagree.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Is "ownership" theft?

Ownership is control. In itself it makes no distinction.

Theft (and justice) matter much less than waste. Arguably, 'justice' is a subjective word for objective waste

Waste is a key ingredient for capitalism. It helps to maximize profit. Not always waste from the producer, mostly from the consumer. A good business owner would pray that the consumer wastes their product.

But victims too. We will provide to our children yet receive nothing from them.

I can only say that you must have raised them poorly.

[Hugo]

I also will suggest that you are mistaken to use the word 'socialism' in your arguments. 'Communism' would be a better fit, and more so 'Marxist-Leninist'.

This is incorrect. Throughout their texts, Marx and Engels use the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably.

I have read them all, none of them 'online'. The last two have no relevance to my argument. In fact, they may even support it.

I assume, based on your previous posts in this thread, that it's too much to ask how the last two might support your argument, or to ask how the first document has relevance to it.

Socialism is, as Mr. Hardner previously pointed out( in a different context), a hybrid system of taxation with the iintent of benefitting all, in a 'controlled' free-enterprise system.

Another error in basic definitions. Socialism is a political dictatorship of the proletariat with the economic aim of proletarian ownership of the means of production. There should be little to no taxation because the workers own the means of production themselves and do not require redistribution of wealth, in fact, the state is supposed to wither away altogether in time. I shall add "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto" to the list of texts I should like you to familiarise yourself with before we go any further. This combined with your earlier blunder on the confusion of socialism and communism indicates to me that you have read neither.

Otherwise, 'free-enterprise' means 'everyman for himself'.

I suppose the thousands of employees of corporations such as GM, Microsoft or Exxon are all working for themselves, are they? Or is it that they are all working towards a common goal from which they will all benefit, whether they realise it or not? I suppose every MP and every party member in this country is also working for himself and not for a common goal, either? What about church-goers? How about those who volunteer for charitable organisations? What about programmers who write free software? "Free enterprise" is exactly that: free. It means you are free to do what you will and that includes selfless acts and co-operation. Socialism gives no freedom and therefore strangles selflessness, co-operation and free associations.

Something that capitalist thinkers understand and socialists do not is that there is a difference between moral motivation and moral outcome. Capitalism harnesses immoral motivations to produce a moral outcome, whereas socialism replaces that with moral motivations which lead to immoral outcomes. The road to the socialist hell that many peoples have been subjected to is paved with admirable intentions.