History #1

To begin, I don't think Paige realizes what she is really saying here. As a Postmodernist, she does not believe in metanarratives, absolute truths, or pushing beliefs that she has on others. Her argument, on the other hand, does exactly this. Here, she is most certainly making a truth claim about the state of history, which is contradictory to her belief system.

As for her argument, I personally believe that for the most part history is reasonably and fairly written, as well as objectively true. History, in and of itself, has a system of checks and balances which makes this possible, including the fact that it was written by everyone: winners and loosers alike. It would be unfair to completely discredit Paige's statement because of course some of history is written by the winners, but then again, some of it is not! However, to add on to this, I think the real argument against Paige's statement resides in the fact that history, for the most part, is and was written by eyewitnesses of events that have occured. What better evidence, what better credence is there then from eyewitnesses to events in history?

One of the best examples of the reliability of eyewitnesses is during the past wars that have become a part of our history. The Civil War, and both of the World Wars have been documented in history because of eyewitnesses who have taken the time to write down their accounts of what has happened, whether or not their side was winning the battle, or ultimately the war. It is when countless accounts of historical happenings from different points of view match up (which has happened in all of these named wars), that history comes alive as being a true, reliable, and objective source.

Think for a minute about the city of Troy. For years people believed it to be fake-to be a made up story by author Homer, in his book the Illiad. However, in 1870, archeologist Heinrich Schliemann found reminants of an ancient city, using clues and directions he found refrenced in Homer's books. Though people may claim history to be fake, and not objectively true, even true tales of lost cities from long ago match up with what authors say.

In closing, it is important to realize that people, like Paige, may have their own opinions about the importance of events in history, but you cannot doubt the facts: the eyewitness proved, objective facts.

Economics #2

Oh Marxists--When will they learn? It is quite typical of Marxists, namely Mark and Sarah in this case, to believe that the government should not only equally distribute wealth, but that the State should own everything (meaning no private property). Yes of course this sounds like a utopia in which the poor would no longer be poor and the rich would no longer be hierarchial over the rest of society, but I wonder if they ever stop to think about what could go wrong with this type of government (an economic system for that matter).

In regards to Mark and Sarah's question of whether socialism works, or whether it doesn't, I strongly believe that socialism does not work and cannot work. This is mostly because of the fact that this world is populated by corrupt human beings. Many worldviews fail to agree with this, yet it is absolutely true. With such a foundation as corrupt man, of course an economic system of equality has no chance of surviving! Something Moore said on the subject of wealth really struck me. He claims that a problem with today's economic system is the fact that a "vast majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people." To this I wanted to say to him, yes this may be true, but how would spreading the wealth to every competitive, sinful human being work any better?! Even now in a democracy, the poorer people of this country (not all of course, but many) rely on the handouts of the government, and abuse the welfare system of this nation. With a nation of corrupt human beings, how would creating equality in the workplace get rid of the natural tendencies man has toward sin? Towards always wanting more, and never satisfied with what they already have?

I think another problem with socialism, which causes it not to work, is the removal of competition by enforcing equality within the "working man's world." The removal of competition ultimately takes away the motivation that drives people to get up, go to work, and provide for their families. The removal of competition not only removes motivation, but it removes the possibility for increased profit. With an opportunity to compete in the American business world today, business have the opportunity to make an increased profit, which in turn pumps money into the economy, and into the government as well through various required taxes. Socialism, unfortunately, allows for none of this.

Lastly, socialism does not work because as it takes away private ownership, it also takes away the self worth that people find in ownership. People obviously take pride in their possessions, and many even find their own worth in their possessions (whether or not this is healthy is for another blog). Removing the opportunity for private possessions is therefore oppressive, ironically the opposite of what socialism (and Marxism) claims to do.

Economics #1

"Socialism is democracy" began Mr. Moore in his video which inspired the crowd as he fervently spread his socialistic ideals to the masses. I had always thought that socialism was simply a way of viewing the economic system, but in fact it is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land, ect. in the community as a whole. Knowing that we here in America live under a Democracy (or at least say we do), this statement puzzled me. However, I was even more shocked (and intrigued) as he stated the following: "Socialism is Christianity and Judaism, and Islam and Buddhism. All great religions say same things that Marx said..." First of all, I applaud Mr. Moore's efforts to harmonize his speech by introducing all religions equally, but I believe after learning more about the economic systems of different religious groups that this statement may not necessarily hold true. To begin, each view of economics must embrace either Socialism or Capitalism (free market), yet at the same time no economic system fully embraces one of these forms (except for the Marxist view which embraces only Socialism). To distinguish the two, Capitalism occurs when all or most of the means of production are privately owned. On the other hand, socialism occurs when ownership is controlled by the government (in other words, no private property). Moore falters when he says that Socialism is Christianity. This ultimately says that Christianity remains a just economic system through public ownership which prevents greed, envy, and lust brought on by Capitalism. This however, is not Biblical sound. Throughout both the new and old testament, the Bible preaches about stewardship of property: private property. God has given us the opportunity to work hard and be rewarded through the motivation of private property. Therefore, saying Christianity is Socialism is not only false, but opposing. Yes, Christianity may embrace certain aspects of Socialism just as every economic system does, but it certainly is not based or founded on the Socialist system. Next, Islam. He is right: Islam and Christianity have similar economic systems but they aren't fully Socialistic as he claims in the beginning of his speech. Islam maintains four basic principles when it comes to economics: unity, equilibrium, free will, and responsibility. In direct contrast to Moore's statement, Nobel states in the Understanding the Times textbook, that "Muslims attempt to distinguish their approach to economics from both Capitalism and Socialism, alleging that their view is a mediating approach" (364). In other words, Islam economics mixes both economic systems, rejecting Socialism's denial of private property yet rejecting Capitalism's absolutism when it comes to private property. Clearly, because Islam has pieces of each economic system it cannot be fully Socialistic as Moore says. To continue, Moore claims that "all great religions say the same thing" regarding their economic system of choice. Having already disproved this point through the analysis of Christianity and Islam, I move now to Secular Humanism. Moore is right in some way: Secular Humanism does embrace Socialism because "they believe in the inherent goodness of humanity and in human ability to overcome evil-theoretically the only thing that prevents a socialist economy from succeeding." In essence, they embrace interventionism: political activity undertaken by a state to influence aspects of the economy usually in order to uphold certain moral values. Of course, Marxism upholds Socialism completely while undercutting the Capitalistic system of economics. The real difference, which disproves Moore's point that all religions believe the same about economics is revealed through the Cosmic Humanist approach to economics. Their beliefs of this are shaped by their political goal of creating a world system of self government. In response, they economically call for a "universal system of exchange" through what is know as Universal Enlightened Production, or the belief that positive thought creates wealth. They believe that traditional economic policies like Socialism or Capitalism are inadequate for a "transformed world." Clearly religions do not agree for the most part about what economic system is best. Their stark differences not only prove that they have differing ideals but that they aren't in fact "Socialism" as Moore claims them to be. Religions must not be grouped like that for they are different in every way and must be preserved that way in order to give an accurate depiction to the public.