there4eyeM
unlicensed metaphysician
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,376
- 5,147
- 280
"Capitalism" grew from an evolving social and economic milieu more or less 'organically'. Essentially at the beginning of the Renaissance, Italian bankers developed various practices and financial instruments that form the basis of this system. It was not an intellectual creation or philosophical construct. It had huge advantages when it came to financing major works and markets. It had all the human flaws, of course, with avarice and simple perversity ever present.
Democracy itself had similar origins, though much earlier. It was not something worked out in advance, but rather a slowly gathered collection of ways to do things collectively and consensually. Its weaknesses were quickly exploited, with history recording the experiment's successes and failures.
"Socialism" grew from European intellectualism and, while this is very powerful, it is also purely 'artificial', ideas woven together from what thinkers liked to think could work. Some of it deals with necessary reform, restraint and organization that includes empathy for humanity. Problems arise where the resulting political power devolves into control by a few (or even fewer). As it does not refer to divine laws for sustenance, it ultimately comes face to face with the dilemma of deciding who or what is the source of 'better' and 'worse' (good and bad). When we see that it really comes down to what the people making the system work want to be true, its 'feet of clay' become revealed. There can be no timeless absolutes, which is a very poor replacement for "God's will" when it come to convincing humans of how they should direct themselves.
This is why all the above fails to serve mankind in the highest and best fashion. All of it is materialistic, and humans are the part of the universe that transcends (or, at least is capable of transcending) that miserable, lowly level. It may be a poor term to use, but humans have a "spiritual" quality that must be dealt with.
Democracy itself had similar origins, though much earlier. It was not something worked out in advance, but rather a slowly gathered collection of ways to do things collectively and consensually. Its weaknesses were quickly exploited, with history recording the experiment's successes and failures.
"Socialism" grew from European intellectualism and, while this is very powerful, it is also purely 'artificial', ideas woven together from what thinkers liked to think could work. Some of it deals with necessary reform, restraint and organization that includes empathy for humanity. Problems arise where the resulting political power devolves into control by a few (or even fewer). As it does not refer to divine laws for sustenance, it ultimately comes face to face with the dilemma of deciding who or what is the source of 'better' and 'worse' (good and bad). When we see that it really comes down to what the people making the system work want to be true, its 'feet of clay' become revealed. There can be no timeless absolutes, which is a very poor replacement for "God's will" when it come to convincing humans of how they should direct themselves.
This is why all the above fails to serve mankind in the highest and best fashion. All of it is materialistic, and humans are the part of the universe that transcends (or, at least is capable of transcending) that miserable, lowly level. It may be a poor term to use, but humans have a "spiritual" quality that must be dealt with.