Re: The end of faith



Thomas Adam wrote:
> <alex.j.k@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

>
> > Arguing about this topic is merely arguing about word definitions.

> For I wanted that one sees "religion" in the middle of life (both,
> rationalistic and non-rationalistic), as a natural thing of human beings...
> and not to think, only the non-rationalistic ideas (of an hereafter), which
> may be unpleasant for you, or the unpleasant political ideas would be
> "religious".
>

I do agree that there were some good things done by religion. But I
think that there is a peculiar quality to both the good and the bad
done religiously that seems to be objectionable in itself.

More precisely, there seems to be a certain abandon to doing or
believing something without bothering to analyze things rationally,
when doing things religiously. True enough, this tendency can have both
good and bad consequences, but when the possibility of analyzing things
rationally exists, this religious tendency seems to do more harm than
good.

It is in this sense that I called Socialism the religion that caused
the most harm in the 20th century -- not just because I don't like it--
a passionate belief and action in and for something without the
slightest reasonable effort to check rationally the foundations of the
belief.


> > I would say though, that if religion is so desperate that it has to
> > wash up its contents in order somehow pretend that people trying to
> > live a good life are "practicing religion anyway," then religion is in
> > fact essentially dead.
>
> All ideas must have the possibility to change. But here the discussion gets
> a taste of _moral_ accusation against modern forms of religion. Is it
> necessary to discuss it? Also possible, but not now.
>


I did not specify moral accusations against religion above --
although these can be made; from the evil inflicted by the insistence
of the pope that condoms should not be used to the repulsive treatment
of women by some Muslim sects.

I just mentioned that if modern religion empties itself of virtually
all content, only to be able to claim relevance to the modern world,
then it makes itself so poor that it virtually comits suicide.
From what I can tell, it is the powerful --if absurd-- myths that
people want from religion, not its concordance with science. Without
the myths even new age sects would probably be more attractive to the
general public.


[...]

> > It is just plain comical to claim that he had no moral discernment
> > when listening to his advice would have saved hundreds of millions of
> > lives -- while you defend the propaganda of socialist fools which was
> > instrumental in the killing of those hundreds of millions.
>
> OK, he may be right about the tendencies of socialist countries and about
> the economical mistakes...
> But he is not right in assessment of the _moral_ of such people, which
> believed in socialism.

But in fact, that is not even close to the argument that von Hayek
made -- it seems that despite your claims to the contrary, you are not
actually familiar with his argument. Von Hayek's argument was not that
the socialists were evil -- it was that the socialists were misguided
fools with good intentions.

Not only that, but von Hayek was a socialist himself in his youth --
he thus knew the psychology of this affliction intimately -- and became
convinced that socialism can not work, by the economic arguments of von
Mises, which obviously proved to be right too.


> I remember one of the first sentences which i wrote
> to this topic:
> "It was an error to believe in it [the socialism], but it was not a
> crime".

It is not a crime to be a neo-nazi either -- at least in civilized
countries outside of Germany. That does not mean that the
implementation of National Socialism will be moral. Similarly, it is
not a crime to be socialist, even if implementing socialism will lead
to misery for many and very likely tyranny and perhaps people killed by
the thousands if not millions.



> And he is not right, if he mixes Nazis and Socialists. For Socialists were
> the first opposition in the underground against the Nazis; and were the firs
> victims.

That doesn't mean much in terms of the ideological relation of
National Socialism to Socialism -- the socialists in Russia also killed
other socialists upon getting into power, even though the ideological
differences were minor.

Socialists are a notoriously divisive lot.

[...]

> And the German capitalists (Krupp/BASF...) were allied with the Nazis
> (against Socialists).

Your claim above could not be further from the truth. In fact, the
financial contribution German capitalists to the rise of the Nazis was
negligible -- according to respected authorities in the history of the
period. Most German industrialists saw the Nazis as the socialists that
they were, and did not finance them, preferring to support right wing
parties.

I posted a review of Turner's "German Big Business and the Rise of
Hitler" from the academic journal "The American Historical Review"
here:

http://tinylink.com/?qMZfgZqzMo


> But I would shortly say (not explain in
> detail) that you (one) have to watch closely the threats which may emerge
> also (!) in capitalism.

Certainly.
But I think that most of the abuse in capitalism is done by the
influence of organized private interests (companies, lobby groups,
etc.) in government. Which is another reason to reduce the government's
power.

Cheers,
Alex

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Socialism Vs. Capitalism
    ... etymology of the word and they do not realize that "Nazis" did not ... identify groups that called themselves "socialists" in their actual ... German Workers Party to represent crossed S-letters for their ... National Socialists did not call themselves Nazis. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Pledge of Allegiance is Nazism. Swastika = S-letters for "SOCIALISM"
    ... etymology of the word and they do not realize that "Nazis" did not ... identify groups that called themselves "socialists" in their actual ... German Workers Party to represent crossed S-letters for their ... National Socialists did not call themselves Nazis. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Pledge of Allegiance is Nazism. Swastika = S-letters for "SOCIALISM"
    ... etymology of the word and they do not realize that "Nazis" did not ... identify groups that called themselves "socialists" in their actual ... German Workers Party to represent crossed S-letters for their ... National Socialists did not call themselves Nazis. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Socialism Vs. Capitalism
    ... etymology of the word and they do not realize that "Nazis" did not ... identify groups that called themselves "socialists" in their actual ... German Workers Party to represent crossed S-letters for their ... National Socialists did not call themselves Nazis. ...
    (alt.politics)