Is Capitalism unChristian?

[tonyrey]

In the UK the Tories’ austerity policy is a subterfuge which enriches the rich at the expense of everyone else. The national debt has doubled in precise proportion to the rich’s increase in wealth! That is why Corbyn is causing a revolution in British politics. He makes mistakes but his basic message is impregnable. Our first priority should be to ensure diabolical injustice in our society is eliminated before there are more tragedies. Today in Parliament Cameron described refugees as “a bunch of migrants”. Anyone who has seen the photo of Alan Kurdi’s dead body lying on a beach realises this is an extraordinary lack of compassion on the part of a man who has had to cope with the death of his disabled son. He lives in a completely different world to that where people are faced with hardship and deprivation every single day of their lives and have no prospect of ever escaping from their misery. He has never been hungry, penniless or homeless nor can he imagine what it is like. If he could he wouldn’t allow anyone to endure such hardship because he has the power to prevent it. The greatest threat for millions of people in the UK is not a terrorist attack but the government’s violation of their human rights. That is why there is a UN investigation into disabled people’s suicides - which is the last thing one would expect after David Cameron has had to grieve for the death of his own disabled child…

The Prime Minister can prevent more tragedies and if he doesn’t he should be replaced by some one who does - and the sooner the better…

Compared to the UK’s population of 65 million each US state is relatively small which makes me wonder whether there is any correlation between Christianity, the size of the population and social justice. Is there more deprivation in California, Texas, Florida and New York, taking into account the wealth of each state? Pobably a very difficult question to answer but your opinion would be helpful.

 

[powerofk]

:clapping: Many thanks for your superb analysis! The big banks are also at the root of the trouble in the UK, aided and abetted by the government. Under Tony Blair the “New Labour” government was in league with big business. He visited Rupert Murdoch in Australia before he was elected and has become a millionaire since being deposed. The current Prime Minister, David Cameron, has frequent meetings with Murdoch but he never discloses details of their discussions. Jeremy Corbyn, the current leader of the opposition was elected with a majority of 60% because he has fiercely condemned the diabolical injustice in the UK. He is being attacked with smear tactics from within and without the Labour party by those who are more concerned about feathering their own nests than the plight of the poor. It is an uphill battle against vested interests but in four months he has already caused a revolution in British politics with his courage in the face of jeers from his opponents. He has persuaded even Tory MPs to backtrack against their vote for cuts to benefits and given many people hope for the future. There is an interesting article about him in the New York Times:

nytimes.com/2015/09/11/opinion/jeremy-corbyn-and-friends.html

Here’s the thing, though - words matter. If you’re worried about the loss of social programs, use the phrase “safety net”. “Welfare State” is the phrasology used by people wanting to cut programs, because they want others to (a) see these programs as a waste of money and (b) stereotype the people on the programs as “lazy bums” who don’t want to work. And, sure, much work must be done to keep people from abusing systems that are meant to be short-term patches, not long-term sources of income. This is why the “General Welfare” program was pretty much eliminated in the US about 20 years ago, during the Clinton administration - there were many people receiving General Welfare money for whom collecting welfare checks was more profitable than working, so they simply refused to work, even though they were completely fit to work. So a balance is needed to allow people a safety net should they need one, but to make sure that the safety net does not deincentivize working.

 

[tonyrey]

Here’s the thing, though - words matter. If you’re worried about the loss of social programs, use the phrase “safety net”. “Welfare State” is the phrasology used by people wanting to cut programs, because they want others to (a) see these programs as a waste of money and (b) stereotype the people on the programs as “lazy bums” who don’t want to work. And, sure, much work must be done to keep people from abusing systems that are meant to be short-term patches, not long-term sources of income. This is why the “General Welfare” program was pretty much eliminated in the US about 20 years ago, during the Clinton administration - there were many people receiving General Welfare money for whom collecting welfare checks was more profitable than working, so they simply refused to work, even though they were completely fit to work. So a balance is needed to allow people a safety net should they need one, but to make sure that the safety net does not deincentivize working.

I agree but it seems harsh to abolish a safety net for those who cannot work or find work through no fault of their own. In the UK wages are often so low people cannot support their families even if they have a full-time job. Zero-hour contracts are quite common and there is no national insurance for the self-employed. In one of the most prosperous countries of the world there is no excuse for leaving people without the basic necessities of life - which is what is happening here. They have to rely on food banks and voluntary services which cannot always cope when there are so many in need of help: 5.5 million people are earning less than they need and 1.85 million unemployed (3/4 million young people 16-24).
.

 

[tonyrey]

The latest scandals in the UK about the ridiculous amount of tax paid by Amazon Google and Starbucks may well be the turning point in the fortunes of this Tory government, literally as well as metaphorically. Corruption in organisations like FIFA has caused a sponsorship “black hole”’ and led to a financial crisis no one had foreseen. Even the corrupt don’t want to be associated with others who have been exposed because it will harm not only their reputation but also their income and possibly their legal standing. The penalty for bribery is up to 10 years in prison and an unlimited fine for individuals while companies also face unlimited fines. It is highly unlikely that members of this government would be found guilty but if they are they would certainly lose the support of the electorate because no one wants to be associated with criminals, least of all politicians who are supposed to put their constituents before their own interests. Lesser scandals have led to the downfall of ministers and eventually of governments, especially if there is an impending crisis in the national economy. Lack of competence and lack of integrity are an explosive mixture!

In the UK there is no longer a government of the people, by the people, for the people but a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. In the UK the top government jobs are held by at least 14 millionaires and future heirs of family empires. In the last five years they have DOUBLED the wealth of the rich and DOUBLED the national debt to over £1.5 trillion. This correlation is not a coincidence but evidence of a master plan. Under Cameron the richest 1% have acquired as much wealth as the 55% poorest and will continue to do so with his latest proposals to sell the nation’s assets. The Tories are certainly far more competent than Labour in handling the economy - of that there is no possible doubt - but it is for their own benefit and that of their patrons. No wonder they receive a larger sum in donations than all the other political parties put together (in return for subsidies, directorships, sinecures, peerages, honorary degrees, membership of illustrious clubs and societies, advantageous changes in the laws - and hell knows what else). But there is a limit to which even Tory supporters can be deceived - and consequently disgusted if they have an ounce of integrity and compassion for the victims of this government. This is a case of not only unChristian but inhuman capitalism which violates human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

 

[tonyrey]

There are two interesting articles related to this subject:

huffingtonpost.com/roger-d-barris/donald-trump-crony-capita_b_8949138.html

wsj.com/articles/trump-and-his-debts-a-narrow-escape-1451868915

 

[o_mlly]

… This is a case of not only unChristian but inhuman capitalism which violates human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Neither free enterprise capitalism nor socialized capitalism can avoid the biblical injustices noted. These injustices are not the result of a failure of any particular economic or political system but of Original Sin. All economic and political systems will suffer from this defect until the Parousia. Original Sin cannot be legislated or regulated away. Perfection of society in this life is impossible - you will always have the poor.

As St. JPII notes below, free enterprise capitalism is good in that it promotes human freedom and fraternity in the creation and protection of private property. Equality of opportunity and equality of condition will always be at odds in any system. Some re-shuffling periodically to balance unwanted outcomes is required. The Jews corrected their biblical injustices with the Jubilee Year about every 2 generations or 50 years.

*After the failure of communism, should capitalism be the goal for Eastern Europe and the Third World? The answer is complex. If capitalism means a “market” or “free” economy that recognizes the role of business, the market, and private property, as well as free human creativity, then the answer is “yes.” If it means a system in which economic, religious, and ethical freedom are denied, then the answer is “no.” Marxism failed, but marginalization and exploitation remain, especially in the Third World, just as alienation does in the more advanced countries. *
The Hundredth Year (Donders translation), #42

 

[tonyrey]

Neither free enterprise capitalism nor socialized capitalism can avoid the biblical injustices noted. These injustices are not the result of a failure of any particular economic or political system but of Original Sin. All economic and political systems will suffer from this defect until the Parousia. Original Sin cannot be legislated or regulated away. Perfection of society in this life is impossible - you will always have the poor.

As St. JPII notes below, free enterprise capitalism is good in that it promotes human freedom and fraternity in the creation and protection of private property. Equality of opportunity and equality of condition will always be at odds in any system. Some re-shuffling periodically to balance unwanted outcomes is required. The Jews corrected their biblical injustices with the Jubilee Year about every 2 generations or 50 years.

*After the failure of communism, should capitalism be the goal for Eastern Europe and the Third World? The answer is complex. If capitalism means a “market” or “free” economy that recognizes the role of business, the market, and private property, as well as free human creativity, then the answer is “yes.” If it means a system in which economic, religious, and ethical freedom are denied, then the answer is “no.” Marxism failed, but marginalization and exploitation remain, especially in the Third World, just as alienation does in the more advanced countries. *
The Hundredth Year (Donders translation), #42

The principle of moderation still applies! I knew Father Donders when I was teaching in Kenya but he stayed there fifteen years and I left before he did. He was a very humble person and everyone loved him. Afterwards he worked for Cafod and believed the whole Bible is about Justice & Peace. He died three years ago. Requiescat in Pace

 

[fisherman_carl]

What is this “at the expense of” business? Is it the poor’s money the rich are taking. or is it money that they have made themselves because of something they invented or a service they are providing? Hey, why don’t the “poor” just get up off their duff’s and make it themselves? Maybe they could get some education, find a trade, or something else that will be help them make a decent wage. I’m sorry, but I have no tolerance for people who sit around and complain and won’t do a thing to help themselves.

I think that attitude towards the poor is completely wrong! It’s a stereotype prejudice against poor people that they are all lazy, which is completely wrong. Poor people are also hard working. But lets face it under the economic system not everyone can be rich. It’s just not possible.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The problem GK Chesterton sees with big business is that it takes power away from the people and concentrates money in the hands of a few while most make a lot less while being a cog in a machine, which results in a lack of motivation. Chesterton says when a person becomes an owner they become more interested and motivated than when they are just a cog in a machine. Distributism gets rid of big business and replaces it with small business owners. Which is the opposite of what big business has done to small business owners.

youtu.be/GBMQNrB_VIY

 

[tonyrey]

I think that attitude towards the poor is completely wrong! It’s a stereotype prejudice against poor people that they are all lazy, which is completely wrong. Poor people are also hard working. But lets face it under the economic system not everyone can be rich. It’s just not possible.

Not everyone can be rich but a good government ensures that there are be limits to inequality and also the way the rich treat the poor. It is scandalous how Amazon and other corporations make people work as if they are slaves.

 

[tonyrey]

I think that attitude towards the poor is completely wrong! It’s a stereotype prejudice against poor people that they are all lazy, which is completely wrong. Poor people are also hard working. But lets face it under the economic system not everyone can be rich. It’s just not possible.

Not everyone can be rich but a good government ensures there are limits to inequality and the way the rich treat the poor. It is scandalous how Amazon and other corporations make people work as if they are slaves.They also evade taxes and force smaller businesses to close down. Harsh competition is certainly unChristian and violates the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. That is why there must be laws that protect workers’ rights ensuring they receive fair wages, holidays, pensions and compensation for accidents and ill health caused by their employment. In the UK the Prime Minister and other ministers claim to be Christians yet they are attempting to restrict the power of the trade unions which defend the rights of employees. I don’t know whether similar tactics are used in the US but I wouldn’t be surprised because big business seems to dominate the presidential elections with colossal amounts spent on advertising and lobbying…

 

[inocente]

Is Capitalism unChristian?

I know little of the subject and can’t comment but found two references which may interest you.

This article argues that capitalism first developed out of the monastery system: acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-10-number-3/how-christianity-created-capitalism

Then there’s an encyclical by John Paul II which may be worth reading in its entirety. It includes this:

*42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. - w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html*

 

[tonyrey]

I know little of the subject and can’t comment but found two references which may interest you.

This article argues that capitalism first developed out of the monastery system: acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-10-number-3/how-christianity-created-capitalism

Then there’s an encyclical by John Paul II which may be worth reading in its entirety. It includes this:

*42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. - w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html*

Many thanks for those fascinating references. The essential difference between monastic capitalism and secular capitalism is that the former was based on Christian principles for the benefit of the community whereas the latter has degenerated into the exploitation of the community. Mammon has replaced God as the guiding principle and source of inspiration!

 

[Abu]

Tonyrey #133
The essential difference between monastic capitalism and secular capitalism is that the former was based on Christian principles for the benefit of the community whereas the latter has degenerated into the exploitation of the community.

“Capitalism” is not able to decide anything concerning “principles”, people do. Any “degeneration” is, and con only be, by people.

The realization of reality can be based only on what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI affirmed so eloquently:
“Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36). [My emphasis].

The Free Enterprise System has, with the development of the economic laws of cause and effect by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on faith and reason, from the 14th to the 17th century, enabled the enrichment of untold millions from the poverty existing before the enterprises that came with the “Industrial Revolution”. Without the great contribution of the Industrial Revolution, sparked by Catholic economic and social thought and action in the West, we would still be eking out an existence as before that development. Catholic teaching, especially social teaching outlines the morality of this interaction.

Free enterprise is not a world of its own, it is a set of principles based on cause and effect and developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics for the common good.

 

[tonyrey]

“Capitalism” is not able to decide anything concerning “principles”, people do. Any “degeneration” is, and con only be, by people.

The realization of reality can be based only on what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI affirmed so eloquently:
“Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36). [My emphasis].

The Free Enterprise System has, with the development of the economic laws of cause and effect by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on faith and reason, from the 14th to the 17th century, enabled the enrichment of untold millions from the poverty existing before the enterprises that came with the “Industrial Revolution”. Without the great contribution of the Industrial Revolution, sparked by Catholic economic and social thought and action in the West, we would still be eking out an existence as before that development. Catholic teaching, especially social teaching outlines the morality of this interaction.

Free enterprise is not a world of its own, it is a set of principles based on cause and effect and developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics for the common good.

The Free Enterprise System has also caused an incredible amount of suffering well documented in the novels by Charles Dickens and it continues to the present day throughout the world. I knew two young girls in an Indian orphanage who were taken away by their uncle to work in a match factory in Bombay. Both of them were dead within a few years. Requiescant in pace.

 

[Abu]

Tonyrey #135
The Free Enterprise System has also caused an incredible amount of suffering well documented in the novels by Charles Dickens and it continues to the present day throughout the world. I knew two young girls in an Indian orphanage who were taken away by their uncle to work in a match factory in Bombay. Both of them were dead within a few years

.
An example, so prevalent, of human beings, even relatives, degrading those in their charge.

As long as you continue to disregard the Church’s teaching, so shall you continue in error.

We need to face reality. The sneer of “capitalism” came from the Karl Marx of Communism, and St John Paul II in *Centesimus Annus *clearly dislikes the term, preferentially substituting instead, and seeing the great worth of, the “modern business economy” and the functioning of the “free market”, as well as the "market economy or simply free economy.” (#42).

Not only has free enterprise raised the welfare of untold millions out of poverty, but is emphatically affirmed by Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 42, 1991. How does free enterprise raise welfare? As welfare = something that aids or promotes well-being/a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous, the answer is obvious. That untold millions have benefited is unchallengeable.

So long as the Church’s teaching is not accepted, even when known, will there be incomprehension and false conclusions, for as the great Pope emeritus Benedict XVI taught it is “individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility” which need to be directed to the common good.

 

[tonyrey]

.
An example, so prevalent, of human beings, even relatives, degrading those in their charge.

As long as you continue to disregard the Church’s teaching, so shall you continue in error.

We need to face reality. The sneer of “capitalism” came from the Karl Marx of Communism, and St John Paul II in *Centesimus Annus *clearly dislikes the term, preferentially substituting instead, and seeing the great worth of, the “modern business economy” and the functioning of the “free market”, as well as the "market economy or simply free economy.” (#42).

Not only has free enterprise raised the welfare of untold millions out of poverty, but is emphatically affirmed by Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 42, 1991. How does free enterprise raise welfare? As welfare = something that aids or promotes well-being/a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous, the answer is obvious. That untold millions have benefited is unchallengeable.

So long as the Church’s teaching is not accepted, even when known, will there be incomprehension and false conclusions, for as the great Pope emeritus Benedict XVI taught it is “individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility” which need to be directed to the common good.

I believe the best form of free enterprise is a co-operative owned by the workers who decide how the business is run and how the profits will be used. It is more democratic and there is less opportunity for dishonesty or exploitation. The first Christians followed that principle but it probably became impractical when their numbers increased and thje Church extended far and wide.

 

[Abu]

tonyrey #137
I believe the best form of free enterprise is a co-operative owned by the workers who decide how the business is run and how the profits will be used. It is more democratic and there is less opportunity for dishonesty or exploitation. The first Christians followed that principle but it probably became impractical when their numbers increased and thje Church extended far and wide.

Incorrect, but foolish as being against the free enterprise supported by St John Paul II and which has proved so beneficial.

We see in Acts 4:34-35, in A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953:
(This) shows “that property was sold, from time to time, by the owners of it, according as the Church’s need dictated. The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, !2:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.”

In Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 46, (with a new edition, since), Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Some misrepresent Acts 2:44-47, where the faithful lived together and owned everything in common. These so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.”

 

[ChristianDude]

This is a genuine debatable question (hence it’s being asked ). I’d say that it’s not necessarily the antithesis of Christian morality, but the outcomes are more or less something that come in conflict with it. For instance, in the basic sense, the objective of capitalism is for people to have the opportunity to make as much wealth as they can. While it is not in of itself non-Christian to believe in some degree of personal freedom, the goal of Christianity isn’t to gain any material richness, but to strive for something greater (like Jesus, for example). Also, in practice, capitalism has led to varying degrees of corruption due to the pursuit of wealth, and it is in its freest variants (neoliberalism, for example), it does not seem to do enough to address issues that Christians may find important, such as assisting the needy.

 

[Abu]

ChristianDude #139
Also, in practice, capitalism has led to varying degrees of corruption due to the pursuit of wealth, and it is in its freest variants (neoliberalism, for example), it does not seem to do enough to address issues that Christians may find important, such as assisting the needy.

False.

Once again, don’t blame the ideas that have enabled so many poor to become adequately recompensed; blame the individuals who are corrupt as Pope emeritus Benedict XVI has so clearly shown.

Dr Chafuen notes that “many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times. Joseph seems to have had his own business and perhaps a donkey; Peter owned a fishing boat, and Matthew was a tax collector. Jesus praised the rich man Zaccheus. It was the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea who kept faith even when the Apostles were beset by doubt (Mt 27:57). Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them.” Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property. Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 45].

Against Ayn Rand:
Her definition and meaning of “uncontrolled and unregulated” is quite unacceptable as the State has the right and duty to make wise laws, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies as people can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity and, yes, the common good.

Listen, learn and love concerning the teaching re free enterprise in Centesimus Annus, Bl John Paul II, 1991:
‘42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’