 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > christianity and capitalism | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/21/2003 7:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | | I do not have the time to fully answer your wonderful question (vacation starts early tomorrow), but one wonders, who benefits the country of the United States more, our government or Bill Gates? Who does more...if there were not capital, where would we be? Sure there is always going to be abuses, but I think it is wrong to argue from the extremes. I'll be back next week to try and join the consevsation. Have fun! | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/21/2003 8:40 PM (GMT -6) | | I think one must recognize that much of what Jesus said can be worked out in many different ways in a person's life. To say that you don't how I work it out isn't exactly fair, for if I consider myself a Christian than I would be working out my life in view of Jesus's.
Second, it should be noted that Christians do not simply take Christ's life alone, but the teachings of the entire NT as God's revelation to us. Therefore, from a Christian point of view, all of the NT must be examined to find the answers.
BTW, what about the parable of the TAlents, where the master scolds and condemns the one who does the least with his money... | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 10/22/2003 2:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Dana
Glad you will be getting some help in Canada. Good point, how does one reconcile the teachings of Jesus with capitalism. I don't think you can, without twisting scriptures to make it fit. Capitalism has the motor of greed to drive it. Adam Smith 101. Where is greed legitimized in the new testament? Without being a capitalist or a socialist I say capitalism is institutionalized greed. My theory is that Adam Smith, being a Calvinist (I think, correct me if I am wrong)
could justify, in his own mind and the church at the time, his economic theory contained in the Wealth of Nations with the doctrine of predestination, elect to be saved or lost. Though he doesn't state this, it is just my opinion based on what I can gather of his religious beliefs.
Hold on to and practice Jesus's teachings and chunk the rest if you want, that doesn't make you an unbeliever. Trust in Jesus and his words and cull the rest. Peace be with you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/22/2003 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by philalethian
While i do not claim to be a christian i have grown up in christianity. I was always taught, in church, that we need to pray and thank God for giving us so much. Churches around america praise the capitalist ideal. I do not understand this phenomenon. Most christians i know follow a system that is diametrically opposed to everything that the historical figure of Jesus (as well as the early church) was all about. I am strongly socialist because i care about people. I love human beings, even the hundreds of millions who can not afford healthcare (this is me for the next few weeks because i just moved to Canada and don't qualify for free health care until november 1). Even here in the beauty of socialist Canada the Christian right is trying to privatize healthcare because it isn't "fair". Canada has a proud tradition of taking care of the poor and helping out their citizens and people who claim to follow Jesus are trying to ruin this.
How do christian's justify so strongly advocating a belief that is so diametrically opposed to everything Jesus was about?
First of all, I would like to recommend to you "The Penguin History of Economics" (Penguin Books, London) by Roger Backhouse that includes snippets of the history of Christian Economic thought as well as other economic thought.
Second, Thomas Aquinas put it that private property was necessary because of human sinfulness, but because it was due to sinfulness it also must be subject to regulations.
Third, The Scottish Enlightenment and Adam Smith, who was very much a synthesizer of a wide range of thought, writing in a culture where the ideal had been self-abnegation for a long-time, wrote about how it was unlikely people would ever not be selfish at all and how the pursuit of self-interest in some venues, and not others, could ultimately serve the public good. The US adopted this flavor of the enlightenment because it was probably the most conservative flavor out there.
It has generally warded off a trust in concentrations of power in gov't and led to the view that it is inevitable that there will be conflict between different groups within society and that, to an extent, such competition will produce desirable compromises.
However, wrt public provisions for health-care, my sympathies are with you. Part of the problem with the US is that the quality of our democracy has declined over the past thirty years, in large part due to political strategy of pro-lifers and abortion crowding out so many other political issues that would otherwise likely have prevailed in our elections. My point of view is that this happened because many Christians have not developed habits of political deliberation and get taught the importance of personal holiness and avoid politics because of its perceived sordid nature, but are subject to manipulation by their leaders into thinking that voting pro-life is a non-political choice.
Health Economics is not my area of expertise, but clearly there is benefit in everyone being guaranteed some provision. Hospitals tend to be non-competitive providers and, as such, would be more likely to be subject to some forms of regulation. On the other hand, there are problems associated with nat'l public health systems and there shouldn't be anything wrong with trying to reform aspects of it. The problem here is that it isn't always clear who is trying to reform a public system and who is trying to gut it.
Anyways, Smithian liberalism doesn't forbade the need for collective action, but, ultimately, there is a need for political deliberation on these things and many Christians in the US have forsaken the history of deliberation/contention on the relationship between the Church and State that was very predominant throughout the Medieval Period. Many Christians point to the failures of the Social Gospellist, post-millenial movements and emphasize the need to reach as many people with the gospel prior to the rapture/second coming as possible.
An exception to this would be John Perkins, an african-american Christian who wrote about his life experiences in "Let Justice Roll Down". He pointed out how Jesus, with the woman at the well, first appealed to her perceived need for water as a means to address her true need of salvation. It can also be argued that one of the big differences with the Christianity in the US and in Europe was that here we had more churches and they were autonomous of the state and often served as means for advancing the political/economic interests of working class people. In Europe, the aftermath of the Protestant/Catholic Schism left nat'l Churches with very little autonomy from their States and often serving as their advocates among the poor, as the "opiate of the masses".
But historically such need not have always been the case and Church-State autonomy may have been why Christianity stayed strong, until recently, here in the US while it was withering away in Europe.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Ichabod
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 10/23/2003 5:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Socialism does not provide the ability to be generous and philanthropic; it is forced. Capitalism does provide the ability to be generous and philanthropic and specifically prevents the creation of an institution to force generosity such as welfare. We do not live in a purely capitalistic country rather it is some hybrid of course. Christ teaches voluntary generosity and that is how I reconcile Christ to capitalism. Done.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/23/2003 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by philalethian
You do realize that that is comment is a total lie. Germany is socialist, and who has made more technological innovations in the 20th century than germany, except for japan. The fact is that the U.S. would not survive it wasn't for countries like Germany, and Canada, who they depend on for trade.
Germany and Japan have made some important technological innovations, probably in large part due to how they structure their production processes to encourage worker input.
I think we are going to need to be more explicit about what we mean by technological innovations. I was referring to new products, not improved ways of producing old products.
And, Int'l trade does mean countries economies are interdependent on each other and likely to be harmed if the other were harmed.
quote:
The other fact is that capitalist systems rely on taking advantage of the poor. I mean capitalism only exists and thrives in america because their "innovations" are produced by 11 year old children in a factory in the third world where they can pay their workers less than i dollar an hour and make them work 12 hours a day with no breaks. Let us not fool ourselves that is what makes capitalism succeed. If it wasn't for this system America would not be the richest country in the world.
My friend, companies do seek lower labor-costs abroad and workers can indeed be taken advantage of, but that is not why capitalism succeeds. Quite frankly, while the US has always had poorer workers, its wages have historically been higher than many other countries that have had lower rates of growth. And so, it is not accurate to say that the exploitations of the masses is the key to the growth in America's capitalistic system.
quote:
I'm not letting socialist countries off the hook because we benefit from this too, and that is a total tradgedy .
Dana
I agree and have done research that has shown how restrictions in the competition between labor can be more justified in situations of poverty.
However, attacking the US's capitalism as the arch-evil of the world is not going to bring about these sorts of changes in the world. I would counsel you to read up about the example of J.R. Commons who was a conservative reformer that looked for solutions that worked. H influenced a lot of legislation in the US, including civil-service reform, factory legislation, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, interest-rate control, rural credit schemes, inheritance taxation, property-assessment laws, immigration policy, and industrial relations.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 10/23/2003 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by philalethian
Why is it that the U.S. has higher poverty, higher unemployment, higher crime etc... than socialit countries. Have you seen the ratings of the highest standard of living and quality of living. The U.S. is not even close to the top. Sweden, and Canada right on top. Hmm... is there anything in common with these countries. Oh ya thats right they are socialist.
1. Within a year or two of NAFTA being signed, a million Canadians moved down to the U.S. for JOBS. (You're "in school" I bet)
2. Many Canadians who don't or can't wait for critical surgery come down here and pay cash for it. What good is free medical care if you're dead? Oh right, your casket is free.
3. My sister-in-law and husband bought a house in Canada the same time we bought one here. We have 2/3s equity in ours, they have zero (0) equity. We've built up equity, they're just making interest payments.
4. Imagine if you will, instead of the U.S. on the southern border of Canada, imagine Mexico instead. Millions of Canadians going south into Mexico looking for work, millions of Mexicans going north into Canada looking for work. heh heh
5. What's the brand of computer you're using to post here? How about your car? Your car and computer aren't made by a Guatamalan peasant collective are they?
Name one(1) Canadian computer manufacturer:________________
Name one(1) Canadian auto manufacturer:____________________
How about combines? Oh, they get those from that backwater, Russia.
Let's look at unemployment rates:
unemployment rate
Country 1991-1995 1996-2000
--------------------------------------------------------
Australia 9.9% 7.8%
Canada 10.5% 8.3% <---socialist paradise
Japan 2.6% 4.1%
U.S. 6.6% 4.6% <---engine of economic growth
France 11.1% 11.4% <---socialist paradise
Germany 6.6% 8.9%
Italy 10.1% 11.4% <---socialist paradise
Spain 20.9% 18.4% <---socialist paradise
UK 9.5% 6.6%
EU 10.0% 9.7%
EurArea 10.1% 10.5%
Now imagine Canada's unemployment rate if we send those millions of Canadians back...
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
JimmyGgp
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 10/26/2003 10:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi all! I haven't posted in a long time, but I thought I would chime in on this. Please bear with me if my lack of knowledge leads me to say something dumb .
To the best of my knowledge, the NT is largely silent on how to run a government or economic system. Rather, it deals with how WE, as idividuals are to conduct ourselves. I believe that the best system is the one that provides the most freedom of opportunity for the most people, and the more government gets involved in managing our lives, the less freedom we have.
I think that a strong argument can be made for a socialist/communistic form of government being biblical, but look at the former soviet union, probably the most brutal regime in human history, and do we even need to talk about the nazis? Far more evil has been done in this world by such humanist forms of government.
Capitalism is certainly flawed, and health care in this country is such a huge problem, I am not even sure where to start with it (My father is a pharmacist, and we have discused the health care system at length). But I see a trend in this country where the government is increasingly trying to micro-manage our lives. They promise us security in a fallen world where no true security is possible, as long as we sacrifice little bits of our freedom in exchange. I know I am starting to sound like a right-wing sepratist zealot, but I am trying to adopt an etrnal view of my time here on earth, so i guess I put more value on freedom than I do even on my health(I DON"T have health care right now, so it IS a concern of mine).
You can't make a perfect machine from imperfect parts, and we all are imperfect, so making a perfect system is impossible. Any government or economic system is going to have problems, but I think capitalism promotes freedom and socialism encroaches on it, so I'll take capitalism, flawed though it is.
Jesus didn't come to us to critique our economics; He came here to love us and to save us. Jesus didn't set up leper colonies, he cured lepers. I believe it is OUR resposibilty - yours and mine - to helpp those less fortunate than us on a one-to-one basis, and to encourage others to do the same, but not at the cost of thier freedom. God gave us free will for a reason, and I think it is very important to keep that intact as much as possible. We, as individuals, not as a government, must strive to help those who fall through the cracks. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/27/2003 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Most of Hitler's economic policies were quite socialistic.
The communists were the competitors/dissidents, treated like most other dissidents.
Yes, the US's health-care system needs fixin' and our individualism certainly hampers some of the fixin' that is needed. This is a separate issue from Capitalism/Socialism as a whole. On which much has been written that Dana has yet to show himself to be well-read about...
The socialisms of europe do have big problems. Yes, they raised minimum wages and what-not, but this has translated into much higher unemployment rates and problems with job-creation for lower-skilled workers than what has occurred in the US.
Try talking to people who live in these countries, people do have to game the system and many of the reform do prevent the concentrations of poverty as exist in the US and provide for some higher levels of social/income mobility than exist for the poor here in the US, but the wealthy have been able to maintain their wealth and stifle competition/innovation often times with the absence of restraints/checks on their use of the states to further their interests.
Capitalism has greater private property, which entails that state-like entities are able to capture the gov't so as to protect their interests, which in turn is the essence of property. This provides stability to the economy and checks on the ability of others to make large, dramatic changes in the ownership of property. This stability is an important prerequisite to long-term planning.
I agree things have taken a turn for the worse in the US's system of governance in the past thirty years, but it did work rather well before then and its problems could be attributable to other problems/difficulties than the fact that it was a "capitalist" system.
You see there really isn't a fixed referent as to what capitalism exactly entails. With property rights always comes some regulations and while corporations can sway politicians, so can other groups that have competing needs/demands and the outcomes commonly are some form of compromise between several competing interests.
Also in Marx, Communism is a utopic state that is reached once we have broken the barrier of scarcity and the state shrivels up since it never was more than the instrument of the wealthy in the first place. Socialism was an intermediary state that would follow after the revolution, continuing the increased concentrations in industries observed in the 18th century so as to prepare the way for the increased production needed for Communism. Marxism has a totally-depraved view of the state and replaces original sin with scarcity and heaven with communism.
Do try and take some time off to study these things before you display the same intellectual arrogance regarding them.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
JimmyGgp
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 10/27/2003 9:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Any system of government would work if the individuals involved truly, in grace, sought to do the will of Christ. The problem is not with the state, it is with us.
Just two more cents to throw in. | | Back to Top | | |
| 35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|