Capitalism and Catholicism: Consistently Incompatible

[Al_Masetti]

Modern communism has only really been around for about a century, and the modern interpretation of capitalism a little longer. The practice of either ideology, in the way that they have been practiced in working country/state models is, in my opinion inhumane, either way, and neither group of practitioners seems willing to experiment with something close to a Christian model of economic reality, which you seem to be able to see the possibility of. It’s not all bad for the State to help folks out with a few things that they struggle badly with, so long as it is done for humane purposes, and not as an alternative sort of tyrany. Also, people should be able to derive a profit, and some reasonable satisfaction for excellence and achievement. But modern capitalism is so greedy. There just doesn’t seem to be a reasonable point of stability and satisfaction in capitalists. I don’t pretend to have an answer, but I’d venture to guess that there are economists out there who could divise a system where there is incentive for excellence in individuals. A moderate, but compelling profit availability, but also a cap, or maximum rate of profit, so that profiteering doesn’t become the sole incentive for enterprise, or even life itself, and to where it’s unattractive to actually hurt another person in the pursuit of one’s own self satisfaction. There must also be a way to inspire both private and State institutions to do MUCH more for the impoverished. We can’t allow a full bore welfare state, because the great paradox is that the poor need to exist in some form in order to allow the development of altruistic charity, but we are also supposed to detest this very fact, and do all we can for those who are impoverished. I’m still working out a lot of this stuff in my mind and heart. I’ve found that unchecked capitalism is destroying the USA. Unchecked Communism destroyed the Soviet Union and other communist states. There is a hybrid theory yet to be put into action anywhere that could be based on Christian ethics, but it can’t simply be called Christianity because State’s won’t have something that’s from “religion”. I suspect that some relatively free markets with protections against too much profit, and some reasonable state assisted programs for health, welfare, safety, education. Some “pink” socialism, with a bit more incentive for profit. CanAustralSwedeBritAmerianistic Sociocapitalism with full freedom of travel, religion, and property ownership, where those who go the extra mile, can enjoy a little better life while here on earth, and those who can’t seem to catch a break don’t starve. Where those who are on the cusp have incentive to try their best for a bigger taste of the good life, but if they fail, they can still have a basic and humane lfe, which is, while perhaps painful, since there are reasons for the crosses we bear, is not UNbearable. Where the people won’t feel like having an armed revolution and make things go radically one way or another. Not utopia. It’s impossible, and not correctly Christian either. Utopia light. A good State which protects it’s weakest links, and reasoably caps the uncaring ubercapitalist, so that they never forget from whence they came, and have a true understanding of the fine difference between the state available basic life, and the alternatively available moderately luxurious life. Where there are still poor to help for charities, but not a rediculously large underclass who are a paycheck or two away from starving.

I’m rambling and losing track. I know what I’m trying to say. And not it’s not just like this place or that place. It doesn’t exist right now, and as far as I know, never has. It’s not a perfect utopia, nor is it hell on earth. It’s eh…okay for most folks, and pretty darn sweet for the truly brilliant and industrious. It’s not hell for anybody.

Peace to all,

Steven

Steven, I would love to read your post, but it’s hard to follow; can you repost it with some white space. Just add some line returns.

Thanks.

• Al

 

[Caesar517]

Steven, I would love to read your post, but it’s hard to follow; can you repost it with some white space. Just add some line returns.

Thanks.

• Al

Haha, I had the same reaction. Large chunks of text make my eyes water.

 

[RWMorris]

… It doesn’t exist right now, and as far as I know, never has. It’s not a perfect utopia, nor is it hell on earth. It’s eh…okay for most folks, and pretty darn sweet for the truly brilliant and industrious. It’s not hell for anybody.

Peace to all,

Steven

After having struggled through your post twice it sounds to me like you are describing the United States, except you have a totally unrealistic view of human motivations. Economics is hogwash until you know and understand people.

 

[RWMorris]

No explicit management of people will occur in such a state; the best way to describe such management would be “a series of social programs informed by a vague egalitarian spirit.”

Ribo, what are you going to do with the megalomaniacs born into society? The ones that are incredibly charismatic, cultivate a following of thousands, if not millions, and are determined to ‘improve’ humanity? How are you going to ‘manage’ them? It seems to me only the manageable are manageable.

 

[ribozyme]

Ribo, what are you going to do with the megalomaniacs born into society? The ones that are incredibly charismatic, cultivate a following of thousands, if not millions, and are determined to ‘improve’ humanity? How are you going to ‘manage’ them? It seems to me only the manageable are manageable.

I am not advocating a dictatorship. The worst form of politically coercion that I am advocating government funding for social programs. But, I suppose countries like Denmark really are unpleasant dictatorships.

 

[RWMorris]

I am not advocating a dictatorship…

I know you are not advocating a dictatorship, but the question remains, “what are you going to do with the megalomaniacs born into society? … How are you going to ‘manage’ them?” In other words, what do you do with these people to avoid a dictatorship? If all else fails do we resort to violence, revolution, war to rid ourselves of these ‘dictators’?

It seems to me the vast majority of people just want to live their lives in peace, practicing their faith, enjoying liberty, the fruits of their labor, their families, and reasonably good health. Isn’t that what all our struggles boil down to? Getting rid of the megalomaniacs and solving the worst of our problems?

But what do we do with those blasted megalomaniacs?

 

[Peregrino]

I am not advocating a dictatorship. The worst form of politically coercion that I am advocating government funding for social programs. But, I suppose countries like Denmark really are unpleasant dictatorships.

Exactly. No one would want to live in an oppressive totalitarian state like Denmark…

But what do we do with those blasted megalomaniacs?

RWMorris makes an interesting point: what do we do with those who seek power over others?

Can the pursuit of wealth, ever increasing wealth, be considered megalomaniacal? Economic power often equates to political power in this world. Read Dahl, Wolin etc. If we assume an ethic in our society which permits the unregulated pursuit of economic self-interest, it seems that RWMorris’ concern becomes a reality.

Free market advocates rightfully emphasize the importance of individual liberty. Their emphasis upon the pursuit of self-interest would seem to logically include a desire to maximize circumstances (politics) which allow them to become even more wealthy. We end up with monopolies, plutocracy and perhaps corportacracy.

Governmental coercion seems to be a reality at some point, whether it be the welfare state (taxes) or the invasion of foreign countries to achieve the economic objectives of the few who have cornered political power and who are “pursuing their self-interest”.

Where do we want to fall on this continuum of undefined “capitalism”/“socialism”? As I said earlier, I think it would be preferable to live in a society governed by a “vaguely defined sense of egalitarianism” than a dog-eat-dog society based soley upon self-interest. I don’t think that latter reflects the NT is any sense nor the message of Jesus.

If the CAF is any indication, it would seem that capitalism and catholicism get along just fine…

 

[StevenFrancis]

Modern communism has only really been around for about a century, and the modern interpretation of capitalism a little longer. Neither was part of Jesus’ time in the forms we modern folks know and understand, and the practice of either ideology, in the way that they have been practiced in working country/state models is, in my opinion inhumane, either way, and neither group of practitioners seems willing to experiment with something close to a Christian model of economic reality, which you seem to be able to see the possibility of. It’s not all bad for the State to help folks out with a few things that they struggle badly with, so long as it is done for humane purposes, and not as an alternative sort of tyrany.

Also, people should be able to derive a profit, and some reasonable satisfaction for excellence and achievement. But modern capitalism inspires too much greed. There just doesn’t seem to be a reasonable point of stability and satisfaction in capitalists. I don’t pretend to have an answer, but I’d venture to guess that there are economists out there who could divise a system where there is incentive for excellence in individuals. A moderate, but compelling profit availability, but also a cap, or maximum rate of profit, so that profiteering doesn’t become the sole incentive for enterprise, or even life itself, and to where it’s unattractive to actually hurt another person in the pursuit of one’s own self satisfaction.

There must also be a way to inspire both private and State institutions to do MUCH more for the impoverished. We can’t allow a full bore welfare state, because the great paradox is that the poor need to exist in some form in order to allow the development of altruistic charity, but we are also supposed to detest this very fact, and do all we can for those who are impoverished. I’m still working out a lot of this stuff in my mind and heart.

I’ve found that unchecked capitalism is destroying the USA. Unchecked Communism destroyed the Soviet Union and other communist states. There is a hybrid theory yet to be put into action anywhere that could be based on Christian ethics, but it can’t simply be called Christianity because State’s won’t have something that’s from “religion”.

I suspect that some relatively free markets with protections against too much profit, and some reasonable state assisted programs for health, welfare, safety, education. Some “pink” socialism, with a bit more incentive for profit. CanAustralSwedeBritAmerianistic Sociocapitalism with full freedom of travel, religion, and property ownership, where those who go the extra mile, can enjoy a little better life while here on earth, and those who can’t seem to catch a break don’t starve. Where those who are on the cusp have incentive to try their best for a bigger taste of the good life, but if they fail, they can still have a basic and humane lfe, which is, while perhaps painful, since there are reasons for the crosses we bear, is not UNbearable.

Where the people won’t feel like having an armed revolution and make things go radically one way or another. Not utopia. It’s impossible, and not correctly Christian either. Utopia light. A good State which protects it’s weakest links, and reasoably caps the uncaring ubercapitalist, so that they never forget from whence they came, and have a true understanding of the fine difference between the state available basic life, and the alternatively available moderately luxurious life. Where there are still poor to help for charities, but not a rediculously large underclass who are a paycheck or two away from starving.

I’m rambling and losing track. I know what I’m trying to say. And not it’s not just like this place or that place. It doesn’t exist right now, and as far as I know, never has. It’s not a perfect utopia, nor is it hell on earth. It’s eh…okay for most folks, and pretty darn sweet for the truly brilliant and industrious. It’s not hell for anybody.

Peace to all,

Steven

Repost, with more spaces.

I disagree with one poster about “people”. People, though seemingly pretty messed up right now, can always change, provided that reforms are enacted nice and easy. I even think that more people than not WANT to be humane, and helpful, but it’s simply just too easy to lie, cheat, and harm others the way Satan drew us to set things up. We have the free will, (and eventually), the simple survival need to change. It can happen.

No…it’s not a U.S. Model. We’re some of the folks in trouble right now. It’s just that ours is really only starting in the grand scheme of things, and I’d really like us to nip a few things in the bud while they’re still more or less nippable.

What would Jesus do? He knows we can’t have perfection here, until His Kingdom is complete. But there is also plenty of evidence that we’re supposed to sincerely give it a go. It starts with the individual though. Loving your neighbor as yourself.

Peace,

Steve

 

[JimG]

And sometimes loving your neighbor can devolve into enabling bad behavior, especially when the government tries it. I suspect that the spate of social programs has in some cases helped to destroy families, which cannot be good for a nation.

 

[Peregrino]

And sometimes loving your neighbor can devolve into enabling bad behavior, especially when the government tries it. I suspect that the spate of social programs has in some cases helped to destroy families, which cannot be good for a nation.

Wow, Jesus the enabler and the evils of charity…

 

[JimG]

Wow, Jesus the enabler and the evils of charity…

I was thinking of LBJ’s ‘war on poverty,’ which after spending billions did not succeed in eliminating poverty but made great inroads in destroying the family while building bureaucracy. Perhaps that’s what Jesus had in mind.

 

[RWMorris]

… I disagree with one poster about “people”…

Is this what you disagree with?
"RWMorris:

Economics is hogwash until you know and understand people.

But then you go on and agree with me.

People, though seemingly pretty messed up right now, can always change, provided that reforms are enacted nice and easy. I even think that more people than not WANT to be humane, and helpful, but it’s simply just too easy to lie, cheat, and harm others the way …

Right now? I think we (the human race) have been pretty messed up since Adam. In some ways, economically speaking, things have gotten a lot better. But spiritually we are as messed up as we’ve ever been, and that part will never get better until God decides to put an end to this world

What would Jesus do? … It starts with the individual though. Loving your neighbor as yourself.

We know what Jesus would do; we have a pretty good written record of his actions. You are right, though, it does start with the individual, but it ends there, too. God’s salvation is a gift to individuals and for individuals. But God’s salvation will not save the world. God tells us that the world will not be saved, that it will pass away.

That tells me there isn’t a heavenly economic model for this earth. Because of the finite nature of our physical world, economics will always be competitive. There always will be people with more, and some with less.

The poor you will always have with you …

• Jesus (Matthew 26:11)

What we have to guard against are those people who are determined to remake our world and redistribute wealth according to their vision. It doesn’t matter whether those people are one (a dictator) or many thousands in number (socialists).

 

[RWMorris]

I was thinking of LBJ’s ‘war on poverty,’ which after spending billions did not succeed in eliminating poverty but made great inroads in destroying the family while building bureaucracy. Perhaps that’s what Jesus had in mind.

The results of LBJ’s “War on Poverty” have been a massive disaster. After $7 Trillion of wasted tax dollars, the number of official poor remains pretty much static as a percentage of the population. $7 Trillion is twice what the US spent on WWII. But the story is much worse; millions of people developed total dependency on the government, the concept of marriage and family among African Americans has been essentially destroyed, criminal activity among those on welfare is much higher than among the working poor, and our public education system, despite many extra Billion$ $pent, is quickly becoming a total failure.

I don’t think you were serious, but just in case, No, I don’t think this is what Jesus had in mind; don’t blame him for the mess we’ve made.

 

[ribozyme]

The results of LBJ’s “War on Poverty” have been a massive disaster. After $7 Trillion of wasted tax dollars, the number of official poor remains pretty much static as a percentage of the population. $7 Trillion is twice what the US spent on WWII. But the story is much worse; millions of people developed total dependency on the government, the concept of marriage and family among African Americans has been essentially destroyed, criminal activity among those on welfare is much higher than among the working poor, and our public education system, despite many extra Billion$ $pent, is quickly becoming a total failure.

I don’t think you were serious, but just in case, No, I don’t think this is what Jesus had in mind; don’t blame him for the mess we’ve made.

There are reason why the war on poverty failed…unpleasant reasons. But it has nothing to do with destroying the work incentive.

And it really doesn’t bother me if many simply become dependent on the government. What really bothers me is that this will provide a perverse incentive for them to have children which the government will have to pay for, and more importantly put stress on the biosphere. That means more poverty.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Is this what you disagree with?

But then you go on and agree with me.

Right now? I think we (the human race) have been pretty messed up since Adam. In some ways, economically speaking, things have gotten a lot better. But spiritually we are as messed up as we’ve ever been, and that part will never get better until God decides to put an end to this world

We know what Jesus would do; we have a pretty good written record of his actions. You are right, though, it does start with the individual, but it ends there, too. God’s salvation is a gift to individuals and for individuals. But God’s salvation will not save the world. God tells us that the world will not be saved, that it will pass away.

That tells me there isn’t a heavenly economic model for this earth. Because of the finite nature of our physical world, economics will always be competitive. There always will be people with more, and some with less.

For argument to succeed on any given topic, both participants have to agree on the principles upon which the argument is founded. The irreducibles/axioms. We don’t agree on those. I think communists and capitalists each miss 50% or so of Christ’s message. You’re a capitalist. You won’t accept any viture, or allow your mind to accept that any of what Christ taught was favorable to socialist ideas in any regard whatsoever. If anyone in the western world would admit to being marxist, I’d have the same degree of difficulty in trying to advance the ideas I’m trying to express, because they would be unwilling to acknwledge that capitalism holds some valid answers to the key failings in their systems.

I keep trying to stay away from these topics. They are a source of frustration, which is probably quite unnecssary for the living of my life as a Christian husband and father, so as I have tried to do in the past, I will try to do again. To leave this topic of the Forums alone. The arguments do nothing for me, but perhaps notch my blood pressure up a point or two.

So, I’m not agreeing. Simply dropping out of the debate as non-productive. If you find productive fulfillment in these things, Godspeed.

Peace my friend,

Steven

 

[RWMorris]

… And it really doesn’t bother me if many simply become dependent on the government. What really bothers me is that this will provide a perverse incentive for them to have children which the government will have to pay for, and more importantly put stress on the biosphere. That means more poverty.

Actually, dependency on the government will reduce the number of children born, so I can see why this would be right up your alley.

But you are wrong about the biosphere, more people increase the incentive for solutions and increase the scientific and engineering skills necessary to develop and deploy those solutions. The more need for finite resources increases the efficiency of their use and reduces pollution and waste. Fewer people will only reduce the incentive to be efficient and increase pollution. The truth is exactly opposite of conventional (socialist) wisdom; as it usually is.

Can you here that? I do. It’s the sound of the left crying out in anguish and pain. Duck!! That rotten tomato almost got ya.

 

[estesbob]

There are reason why the war on poverty failed…unpleasant reasons. But it has nothing to do with destroying the work incentive.

And it really doesn’t bother me if many simply become dependent on the government. What really bothers me is that this will provide a perverse incentive for them to have children which the government will have to pay for, and more importantly put stress on the biosphere. That means more poverty.

Good thing you parents didnt feel this way. BTW have you had your vasectomy yet?

 

[ribozyme]

Actually, dependency on the government will reduce the number of children born, so I can see why this would be right up your alley.

But you are wrong about the biosphere, more people increase the incentive for solutions and increase the scientific and engineering skills necessary to develop and deploy those solutions. The more need for finite resources increases the efficiency of their use and reduces pollution and waste. Fewer people will only reduce the incentive to be efficient and increase pollution. The truth is exactly opposite of conventional (socialist) wisdom; as it usually is.

Can you here that? I do. It’s the sound of the left crying out in anguish and pain. Duck!! That rotten tomato almost got ya.

The political right always stresses the rather nebulous term “efficiency.” Do you have any evidence that more people yields less pollution that isn’t plagiarized rhetoric from Milton Friedman? I suppose such a scenario would be correct if people in the developed world adopt the lifestyles of people of the undeveloped world as they have a smaller ecological footprint per capita.

 

[ribozyme]

Here is a counter-example to your “theory:”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevon%27s_paradox

 

[Peregrino]

But the story is much worse; millions of people developed total dependency on the government, the concept of marriage and family among African Americans has been essentially destroyed, criminal activity among those on welfare is much higher than among the working poor, and our public education system, despite many extra Billion$ $pent, is quickly becoming a total failure.

You remarks here border on racism-you seem to think you can clearly define the conceptual/values framework of the entire african-american community. Crime and inequality seem to go hand in hand. The literature supports a strong correlation between crime and poverty/economic inequality (however your want to define the two).

For you to assert something as strong as causation between crime and values among groups of people due to the “war on poverty” or welfare is just plain silly and that is being charitable-something you are apparently against…lol.

But you are wrong about the biosphere, more people increase the incentive for solutions and increase the scientific and engineering skills necessary to develop and deploy those solutions. The more need for finite resources increases the efficiency of their use and reduces pollution and waste. Fewer people will only reduce the incentive to be efficient and increase pollution. The truth is exactly opposite of conventional (socialist) wisdom; as it usually is.

Your assertion hinges upon the assumption that technological solutions exist for pollution and waste. Also, no amount of the right’s golden idol “efficiency” will prevent finite resources from being exhausted. The resultant inequalites will produce more crime and poverty.