You keep saying it doesn't work, but you aren't really proving it. Just because you think capitalism is all about greed and looking out for yourself doesn't mean it is. In socialism, for example, do the people running businesses really give a **** what consumers want?
Of course, that depends on perspective, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Jesus advocated or favored it as a philosophy. [rquoter] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. [/rquoter] ...that seems pretty straightforward to me.
Nobody sane will argue that capitalism is not the best system around right now. Hell, I have defended capitalism (albeit of the more regulated kind) numerous times but a distinction has to be made between people who view capitalism as nothing more then it really is (a dirty system that is replaceable and which can be improved) and those who venerate it, almost like a second religion. Personally, I'm not even Christian (at least probably not in the conventional sense associated with the term), but I cannot fathom how people can espouse capitalism as an ideal (while avoiding elements of socialism like the plague) when they are professing themselves to be Christian. If you're Christian and you have two cents of sense, then you know the fundamental premise behind capitalism is morally wrong, point blank. Whether or not you choose to do anything about it is your call...but I'm hoping eventually, this modicum of common sense will float into American politics and we start seeing gradual improvements in the system itself. Maybe we can iron out the kinks until it perhaps becomes a new system in of itself.
I'm not the one claiming Jesus favored capitalism or socialism...not sure why you don't direct this to the first poster. How is this incompatible with capitalism, exactly? Not everyone in capitalist eonomies gets rich, but they are most certainly better off than in command economies. There are rich people in socialist economies too (though they are fewer in number, and probably rich because of corruption). Besides, that quote was not meant to be taken literally...
Why don't you state for us what the fundemental premise is and why it is morally wrong? People being able to freely make economic decisions and own private property is not incompatible with Christianity. Christianity is about faith and morality, not economic systems.
I really think nobody (or very few people) give a s*** about everyone that isn't close to them. Cynical musings of yours and of mine are beyond the point here for me though. The current phobia about incorporating socialistic elements into American capitalism is a good example of the conflict between modern-day values and scripture. It seems the system itself has been elevated to the position of doctrine and I have heard of many who consider it "morally right" and an ideal. This has to change and you would think that with the religion many of these same people embrace, the change would be accelerated, but I guess not. We are all born hypocrites, I suppose. Capitalism is WORTHLESS. It is nothing more then a skeleton that we must pick and clean. If not for modifications brought on throughout the ages, the frightening reality of Victorian England may still be with us. Don't forget that it was Marx who brought us child labor laws.
I think Americans in general have a phobia about socialism for many reasons. I think many of us just don't buy that it works. Whether we are Chrsitian or not, we just don't like the government being so involved in our economic lives.
Be that as it may (and I would point to the case studies of well say, Sweden, Canada, Norway etc., but I digress), if you are a true Christian then you know changes must be made. And if not must, then should (big step between doing and saying; for all my blabbering, I must admit I lean towards the saying side). Though, from a purely rational viewpoint, given what has happened the last year or so, one would think that logic has kinda screwed unregulated capitalism as well.
Well, since this is a thread about Christianity and capitalism.... To be clear, you are claiming authority to say what Jesus really meant? In any case, in more general terms with respect to the discussion, from the AP, it seems the OP isn't the only one with concerns: [rquoter] Pope proposes new financial order guided by ethics VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI called Tuesday for a new world financial order guided by ethics and the search for the common good, denouncing the profit-at-all-cost mentality blamed for bringing about the global financial meltdown. In the third encyclical of his pontificate, Benedict pressed for reform of the United Nations and international economic and financial institutions to give poorer countries more of a say in international policy. "There is urgent need (for) a true world political authority" that can manage the global economy, guarantee the environment is protected, ensure world peace and bring about food security for the poor, he wrote. The document "Charity in Truth," was in the works for two years, and its publication was repeatedly delayed to incorporate the fallout from the crisis. It was released a day before leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations meet to coordinate efforts to deal with the global meltdown, signaling a clear Vatican bid to prod leaders for a financially responsible future and what it considers a more socially just society. "The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics, but an ethics which is people centered," Benedict wrote. The German-born Benedict, 82, has spoken out frequently about the impact of the crisis on the poor, particularly in Africa, which he visited earlier this year. But the 144-page encyclical, one of the most authoritative documents a pope can issue, marked a new level of church teaching by linking the Vatican's long-standing social doctrine on caring for the poor with current events. While acknowledging that the globalized economy has "lifted billions of people out of misery," Benedict accused the unbridled growth of recent years of causing unprecedented problems as well, citing mass migration flows, environmental degradation and a complete loss of trust in the world market. He urged wealthier countries to increase development aid to poor countries to help eliminate world hunger, saying peace and security depended on it. He specified that aid should go to agricultural development to improve infrastructure, irrigation systems, transport and sharing of agricultural technology. At the same time, he demanded that industrialized nations reduce their energy consumption, both to better care for the environment and to let the poorer have access to energy resources. "One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of 'efficiency' is not value-free," he wrote. Benedict said that the drive to outsource work to the cheapest bidder had endangered the rights of workers, and he demanded that workers be allowed to organize in unions to protect their rights and guarantee steady, decent employment. Benedict called for a whole new financial order — "a profoundly new way of understanding business enterprise" — that respects the dignity of workers and looks out for the common good by prioritizing ethics and social responsibility over dividend returns. The Rev. Drew Christiansen, editor of the Jesuit monthly America and a leading social ethicist, said he was most intrigued by the pope's call for a new sector of society to work alongside government, market and civil society: for-profit entities that work for the common good, which Christiansen suggested could include "fair trade" product makers and micro-finance institutions. "I am not sure these enterprises yet constitute a sector of economic life," Christiansen wrote on his blog. "But they are harbingers of a different, conscientious kind of economics that would not repeat the mistakes of the last 30 years." Kirk Hanson, a business ethics professor at Santa Clara University, said that while the encyclical went into some detail about the rights of workers and the duties of the state in protecting those rights, there was precious little about how an actual CEO leader should go about business. "It's almost as if the church has so little trust in business leaders that it speaks to the political leaders urging regulation and the consumers urging voting with their buying power," said Hanson, who chaired hearings leading up to a similar U.S. Catholic bishops' statement on capitalism and social justice in the 1980s. Benedict has written two previous encyclicals in his four years as pope: "God is Love" in 2006 and "Saved by Hope" in 2007. The pope's focus on world finance raised questions about the state of the Vatican's own books. The Vatican was implicated in the 1980s collapse of Banco Ambrosiano, in which the Vatican's bank was the major shareholder, and it agreed to pay $250 million to Ambrosiano's creditors, while denying any wrongdoing. At the start of the meltdown in October, a top Vatican bank official assured that its deposits were safe and had no liquidity problems, saying the bank had stayed away from derivatives, the financial instruments blamed in part for the crisis. Other officials have said 80 percent of the Vatican's investments are in low-yield government bonds and 20 percent in stocks and that the Vatican does not invest in companies that produce arms or contraceptives. The Vatican in its annual financial statement issued Saturday said it ran a deficit in 2008 for the second straight year, posting a €900,000 ($1.28 million) loss, compared with a loss of €9.06 million a year earlier. [/rquoter]
Hey look, it's the guy who has a Swedish wife and now he thinks he knows everything. I've worked in Sweden, and can tell you that socialism sucks and wouldn't work here
I think many of us see Capitalism as a way to achieve gains that would not be achieved by any other system that exists currently. Would the world really be a better place without Capitalism? It may not be driven by a desire to help others but without Capitalism many of the inventions, medicines, and technologies that exist today just never happen. So while you claim that Capitalism is incompatible with Christianity, I fundamentally disagree. I think that anything that makes the world a better place to live can be squared with Christianity. It's a simple question of: Would Jesus rather everyone live at level X or would he rather have some people at level X and others in a better position (Y)? Naturally your answer would be that he wants everyone to be at position Y, which would be correct. However, nothing we have right now is going to make that possible. Thus the question is would you rather have a system where everyone suffers or a system where some suffer and some don't? Honestly, I understand the viewpoint that some people believe that because the engine behind Capitalism is self-desire it is incompatible with the fundamentals of Christianity. However, Jesus himself realized that there will always be poor among us. It's important that we don't forget that and do what we can to help those less fortunate than us. However, to say outright that there is no way to square the two is to have blinders on to the nature of the world as it exists. A world without Capitalism (to this point) is a world that is worse off for EVERYONE. That is not what Jesus would have wanted, I think. We must continue to strive for a better way to take care of those around us, of course.
Not saying the two can't co-exist, just that they do not support one another. Capitalism works marvels as an economic system, although to conclude that without it the world would be worse off for everyone is a question of biased perspective; the fact is, Western societies, as a direct result of capitalism, are overspending and over consuming resources that poor nations are forced to yield, a most unjust situation. I do however agree that capitalism has created a better world for some, more then every other system has yielded and that socialism is not the direct solution...I'm just concerned with how stagnant the philosophy of capitalism is quickly becoming in some corners of the country and I fail to see how this happens when a large amount of the same people who are embracing capitalism whole-heartily are supposedly devout Christians. Either admit that capitalism is morally bankrupt and that it is based on a premise of sin (based on your own religion) or just throw off all pretenses and go the Ayn Rand way. At least she was intellectually honest in embracing rational selfishness...and rejecting religion of all forms.
Based on my own personal experience (now related to you via totally reliable internet anecdote, in place of a reasoned and thought-out argument) Mars kinda sucks, I don't recommend it, it's kinda hot
Northside Storm, The problem with all religions is that you have both people who are familiar with the doctrine, and worse, people who are not familiar with the doctrine spouting their opinions as facts. Second, I think you need to go back to school and learn basic economics 101. Start with the glossary. Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, ect.ism ... all share a common denominator; They are all full of greed and corruption. To say Jesus preferred one over the other is plain foolish. If you think he really had a preference, then it only shows how little you know about him. (hint: its whats in the heart, not whats on the outside)
I happen to be taking what I guess would be the equivalent of a bachelor in Economics right now, so it's funny you would bring up Economics 101 XD...do I come off as that ignorant? eh. probably should pay attention in more of my classes. That said, I am glad we can agree that Capitalism is morally wrong. bien. I never claimed Communism or Socialism were "morally better" and as for Jesus Himself, I would naturally think that He would lean more towards socialism; of course, as I have made clear before, I am in no way carrying the will of the Almighty and it is merely my opinion (which, oddly enough, is something I find myself a bit in the minority on, what with the whole brouhaha on homosexuals, abortions and condoms.) based on my interpretation of the Scripture that socialism would be more acceptable then unregulated capitalism, in terms of compatibility with Christian doctrine. That said, I don't really like the fact that you deflected the argument away to communism and socialism when I have made it ardently clear that they are not the solution. I lament the fact that America refuses to incorporate small beneficial aspects of socialism but I would NEVER believe that socialism or communism are inherently morally right (though idealistically speaking, we're in a better position then with Capitalism) or the be-all end-all as some Christian conservatives hypocritically think about Capitalism. That is the crux of the matter. This whole fog and smoke about Communism and Socialism is just an attempt to deflect matters away from the point of the thread...just admit that capitalism is a broken system in terms of Christian ethics. The best thing we have, just like nukes are the best solution we have in terms of really thorny conflict situations. We HAVE to strive to change this. Countless people have to realize that capitalism is JUST A SYSTEM, one that we are better off searching for an alternative or small improvements then venerating as if it were a Golden Calf. Capitalism is not morally right and it never was and never will be.
I explicitly stated that it's based off of greed. I admitted that. Just because something is based on poor morals doesn't mean it can't do a lot of good, though. Your disdain (or what seems like it) for both capitalism and Christianity is clouding your judgment I believe. It is indeed possible to realize that while the motives behind something may not be 100% pure it is possible for the effect to be one that is best for all. I'll give you an argument made by some (not me) that is similar to prove that I understand it's a shady area: A woman in abject poverty chooses to have an abortion for purely selfish reasons (doesn't want to take care of the baby, doesn't want to spend money, etc.). Some would argue that it might be in the child's best interests to not be born into such a situation and that the greater good (for the child) might be served by preventing his birth. I personally don't agree with that particular example (mainly due to my beliefs on abortion) but I believe it shows, from a viewpoint that some who usually may not agree with me might follow, how the motives behind something might not affect the desirability of the outcome. I'm also not sure I made sense there so let me know if I'm saying this in a confusing way.
