Is capitalism compatble with Christianity?

[Bullseyed]

Thankfully!!! It is a rather absurd ontology, I think


Yes agreed, however did Jesus not also teach that whole world was God's temple and so there is more ambiguity here than you seem to allow for.

Yes they hardley seem like the same animal as modern capitalists do they? see my point now?

Yes this is very well known but does not change the meaning of the proverb a jot!

Does this not underscore my point or am I missing something?

Interesting I did not know this but once again this should further reinforce not undermine my point??

Really is not maximising self interest the very basis of capitalism or maybe every scholar I have ever read was wrong on the matter!!

For the most part, you quoted my post, cut off the conclusions then claimed the legwork as supporting your conclusions. That dog won't hunt. My interaction with you will likely be limited if you continue in the same manner.

Every Biblical reference with general acceptance in Catholicism today supports that more wealth makes it more difficult to achieve salvation, but does not make it impossible. So no, that does not go at odds with Capitalism. It is just something to keep in mind along the road.

Jesus is often quoted as saying to go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. Without capitalism, who would you sell it to? Poor is a comparative term. Without 'rich' there cannot be 'poor'. Therefore there would be no poor if there were no rich. Who would you give to?

Jesus cited giving your cloak, shirt and sandals to people in need. Without capitalism, none of these things would exist, and could not be given away.

The point of these passages is that you should not allow possessions to become and idol. This is a fairly well accepted premise and is not particularly hard for most Christians to deal with today.


As for your characterization of capitalism, I still find it to be fallaciously biased in favor of your argument. So, lets put everything on the same page and use intellectually honest definition and characterization of capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic and social system in which most trade and industry are privately controlled for profit rather than by the state. The means of production (also known as capital), are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits by private individuals, either singly or jointly.

In a capitalist system, investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decisions. A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor, and is therefore allowed to sell the use of it to employers. In a capitalist state, private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework. In a capitalist state, legislative action is confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market, although the government may provide some public goods and infrastructure.

I'm pretty sure that Jesus is a proponent of free will, considering it was one of God's greatest gifts to us. Since capitalism is the primary economic system based on free will, it is fair to say that it is cohesive with God's teaching. Certain extreme actions within the system may violate these rules, but that is the same for anything else. God doesn't condemn life because of murder. Therefore it is logical that God would not condemn capitalism because of greed.

I could go much more in depth, but it is 5:21 on a Friday, and I only have 9 more minutes until the weekend.

[Bullseyed]

Notice the idea of self interest MAXIMISATION it makes a big difference to the argument. As in a world of limited resources maximising one's self interest is always to the detriment of others whether you choose to see it or not. This is my doctrine at least and it seems far more compatable with Christ's than not

No, it's not.

Maximization of self-interest is just fine.

Capitalism in practice today is based much more on 'value added material' instead of maximization of self interest.

You take a stone. Everyone else loses a stone. You shape said stone into a block and sell it. Everyone gains a block, which is of more value than the previous stone. You create wealth within a closed system by exerting effort upon base materials.

Additionally, capitalism is based much more upon accumulated potential than actual goods. For example, Bill Gates is probably worth enough to buy all the bread that will be made in the USA for this entire week. Unless he actually does it, his 'wealth' doesn't actually subtract from anyone. Since most accumulated wealth is used as capital for other peoples investments, most of the time your accumulated wealth is actually working in conjunction with other people to better their lives. Capitalism is a synergistic system built upon symbiotic relationships.

[Rightwing Nutjob]

Excellent job Bullseye.

One addition: You suggest wealth is created in a closed system based on force exerted on a base material. This is similar to the notion that value is defined by labor. Labor is a part of it, but the system is not closed because more factors determine value than labor. The fact that two people can gain by an exchange of goods (they value the one they receive more highly than what they give) is creation of wealth. Both are better off and in possession of more value at the ed of the exchange. Both are wealthier so to speak.

[Bullseyed]

I wanted to further my last point, but if I edited the post at this time (since the conversation is fast paced at the moment) people would likely not see the update. So I'm double posting. Oops.

I'm going to break this out into statements based on your logic Marxist Nutter.


If everyone acts in their own self interest all the time,

and every action that helps an individual is detrimental to all other people,

then no one would ever act.


But in practice people DO act, and therefore there are actions that take place on a daily basis that are mutually beneficial for all parties involved. Therefore, your statement that all actions that help and individual hurt all other individuals must be incorrect.

See what I'm saying?

[Rightwing Nutjob]

But in practice people DO act, and therefore there are actions that take place on a daily basis that are mutually beneficial for all parties involved. Therefore, your statement that all actions that help and individual hurt all other individuals must be incorrect.

See what I'm saying?

You go, man.

Further, everyone acts only in their self-interest all the time -- no matter who they are or what their political, economic or religious beliefs are.

[Bullseyed]

Excellent job Bullseye.

Thanks.


While you were posting your addition, I pretty much was typing the exact same thing. LOL.

Ok, it's time to go home. The boss let me out early because I do an awesome job and its 85 out. See you all on Monday.

[samspade]

Of course Jesus could not be against capitalism as he never knew it!! It did not exist 2000 years ago, yet all his teachings seem contrary to it as i illustrate above. Does this not give you pause for thought at the very least?

Also how is it you can claim to know Jesus' view of capitalism when he never expressed it and indeed challenged greed and taught (as i say above ) that 'it is harder for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven'???

Capitalism did not exist? Really I would say you are in fact wrong. Capitalism has been with us for centuries.

cap·i·tal·ism [ káppit'l ìzzəm ]

noun Definition: free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.

Even before the days of Christ there were merchants and they plied their trade. Even back then if someone came up with something better or cheaper it gained while other fell to the side.

Someone built a bridge and charged to get over it would be an example of something that people could do even back then.

The merchants in the temple were capitalist. What Jesus was upset about was that merchants had used the temple to sell wares.

Joseph and Jesus were carpenters and they worked to advance their life style.

Even with Jesus running around preaching someone had to pay for the food and services his flock consumed and that was the labor of others.

Speaking as an agnostic I see the fault in your argument immediately. As for you being a Marxist there are examples of how that disciple failed to achieve a stable economy or life. Russia is a prime example in which they even did not do the pure form of Marxism because their society has those who get more than the average and since Marxism by definition means that there are no people above the others it defeats itself immediately.

It is clear you have no understanding of how governments actually work and are sitting there with an idealized version as opposed to real life examples of reality when these concepts are advanced.

The reason could be that first you are to young to know and someone else is providing your subsistence and lodging so you think that is great because you do not have to worry.

Perhaps you are a follower of some form of thought that rebels at having to work and get ahead so you are secretly jealous of those who have more than you. There are a lot of peope who think they should be the boss but they neither have the drive to get there or the drive to start an enterprise and make it grow.

[Rightwing Nutjob]

@Bullseye: Take care. See ya later.

[Susanna]

Thankfully!!! It is a rather absurd ontology, I think

And you're a Buddhist?

[Emperor Dragon ARX]

One thinks of Jesus destroying the money lender's stall in the temple and lines like 'the meek shall inherit the Earth' and 'it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for the rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven' and I wonder if a philosophy based on greed and money lust as well as rational selfishness (i.e capitalism) is not the very antithesis of Christ's teachings???

Your thoughts?

Nice try, but no.

Here's a parabls to consider -

Luke 19:11-27

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Of course Jesus could not be against capitalism as he never knew it!! It did not exist 2000 years ago, yet all his teachings seem contrary to it as i illustrate above. Does this not give you pause for thought at the very least?

Wrong. Bartering was being practice as far back as we can tell, and in itself the most primitive system of capitalism. Communism didn't exist back then except in the sense of the root word which rather than communism, it was communalism. Which as according to various passages in the Bible, was never forced upon by Jesus. In fact, the closest one can get is "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is his", which isn't so much an endorsement of communalism, but that whatever belongs to man still belongs to God. That rather than giving to gov't organizations, we ought to give to our fellow brethren of our own free will.

Also how is it you can claim to know Jesus' view of capitalism when he never expressed it and indeed challenged greed and taught (as i say above ) that 'it is harder for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven'???

Luke 19:11-27

Not Really otherwise you could equally say communism existed the first time two people co-operated. The statements seem equally wide of the mark, in my opinion however.

Not at all. Communism is nothing about cooperation, or Marxism at all. But RWNJ stole my thunder in explaining it. Sigh. :(

Let us not forget that maximising your own self interest in the bedrock of capitalism (it is its most core assumption - see Adam Smith or even rational choice theory for that matter) and this seems wholly at odds with Christ's teachings (to me at least)

Maximizing your own self-interest except at the cost of coercing another person. Even Ayn Rand was against the actual anarchies itself.

Notice the idea of self interest MAXIMISATION it makes a big difference to the argument. As in a world of limited resources maximising one's self interest is always to the detriment of others whether you choose to see it or not. This is my doctrine at least and it seems far more compatable with Christ's than not

You need to prove that maximizing one's self-interest is somehow the equivalent to stepping on someone else's toe. Because none of us here, regardless of some of our stances, think individual freedoms can come at the cost of someone else's willingness, or the life of innocence.