Is there a difference between being a humanitarian versus a religious 'liberal?'

[Abu]

St Francis #121
Abu,
what Inwas hoping was that you would define “capitalism.”
But I also have a question for you: what do you say to someone who says that capitalism encouraged the colonizing nations to go in and take a lot of resources out of the colonized area without recompense? Is this correct? Was it moral? How could this have been handled differently if it was immoral?

H.M. Robertson in Aspects of the Rise of Economic Individualism; A Criticism of Max Weber and His School, 1973, p 164, asserts that “It would not be difficult to claim that the religion which favoured the spirit of capitalism was Jesuitry, not Calvinism.”

Dr Chafuen asserts that “While Jesuit thought may indeed have encouraged the rise of a system based on private property (post-Marxist authors speak of the capitalist system)….Jesuit conclusions…have a long tradition and are rooted in the writings of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and their Scholastic followers.”

Rodney Stark, in referring to the ideas of Fernand Braudel in explaining capitalism, writes that “the term ‘capital’ came into use in the fourteenth century to identify funds having the capacity to return income, rather than simply being of consumable value….the use of wealth (or money) to *earn *wealth (or money) ….the systematic risking of wealth in pursuit of gain…in *productive activities *where new wealth is created….implies some degree of management…supervising…(of) commercial complexity, duration, and planning…”

Stark explains that “free markets are needed in order for firms to enter areas of opportunity, which is precluded when markets are closed or highly regulated by the state. Only if property rights are secure will people invest in pursuit of greater gains, rather than hide, hoard, or consume their wealth.” The Victory of Reason, p 55-57].

How could a system so rooted in religion and legitimate endeavour be blamed for the human frailties of greed, connivance, deceit and cheating, which have no place in any human activity. Individual morality determines this, for as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI teaches it is “individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility” which are held accountable.

The immorality of plundering other peoples and nations can be attributed only to evil human designs.

 

[brjoseph]

I believe that defing terms is very important.

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.

One can define capitalism in a positive way or in a negative way. If one poster defines it in Pope John Paul’s first example, and another poster as the Pope’s second example, they will be talking past one another.

On the one hand, Pope John Paul II shows that capitalism is a framework for good, expanding the range of possibilities for many people beyond subsistence. On the other, he shows that it is necessary to have checks on capitalists in place, just as in every other field of human endeavor.

I agree- definitions are very important- which is why I remain confused when after insulting the education and intelligence of fellow posters, Abu continues to substitute the words “Capitalism,” “free market” and “free enterprise” as if they were synonymous; they are not. Each is a separate and involved concept. And as the discussion has turned to the abuses of capitalism, the constant- albeit subtle- topic shift via terminology is making real conversation difficult.

 

[St_Francis]

H.M. Robertson in Aspects of the Rise of Economic Individualism; A Criticism of Max Weber and His School, 1973, p 164, asserts that “It would not be difficult to claim that the religion which favoured the spirit of capitalism was Jesuitry, not Calvinism.”

Dr Chafuen asserts that “While Jesuit thought may indeed have encouraged the rise of a system based on private property (post-Marxist authors speak of the capitalist system)….Jesuit conclusions…have a long tradition and are rooted in the writings of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and their Scholastic followers.”

Rodney Stark, in referring to the ideas of Fernand Braudel in explaining capitalism, writes that “the term ‘capital’ came into use in the fourteenth century to identify funds having the capacity to return income, rather than simply being of consumable value….the use of wealth (or money) to *earn *wealth (or money) ….the systematic risking of wealth in pursuit of gain…in *productive activities *where new wealth is created….implies some degree of management…supervising…(of) commercial complexity, duration, and planning…”

Stark explains that “free markets are needed in order for firms to enter areas of opportunity, which is precluded when markets are closed or highly regulated by the state. Only if property rights are secure will people invest in pursuit of greater gains, rather than hide, hoard, or consume their wealth.” The Victory of Reason, p 55-57].

How could a system so rooted in religion and legitimate endeavour be blamed for the human frailties of greed, connivance, deceit and cheating, which have no place in any human activity. Individual morality determines this, for as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI teaches it is “individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility” which are held accountable.

The immorality of plundering other peoples and nations can be attributed only to evil human designs.

So you’d consider capitalism to be an economy which “money is risked in pursuit of gain”? Or what, precisely? And would you say capitalism, free marketry, etc are all interchangeable terms?

 

[St_Francis]

I agree- definitions are very important- which is why I remain confused when after insulting the education and intelligence of fellow posters, Abu continues to substitute the words “Capitalism,” “free market” and “free enterprise” as if they were synonymous; they are not. Each is a separate and involved concept. And as the discussion has turned to the abuses of capitalism, the constant- albeit subtle- topic shift via terminology is making real conversation difficult.

What differentiates each?

 

[Abu]

St Francis #124
And would you say capitalism, free marketry, etc are all interchangeable terms?

You have the clear evidence of the acknowledged St John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991, #42 – ‘it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’ (post #86) – he dislikes the word “capitalism”.

Fr Percy cites Centesimus Annus, 32:
“The modern business economy has positive aspects. Its basis is human freedom exercised in the economic field, just as it is exercised in many other fields. Economic activity is indeed but one sector in a great variety of human activities, and like every other sector, it includes the right to freedom, as well as the duty of making responsible use of freedom. But it is important to note that there are specific differences between the trends of modern society and those of the past, even the recent past. Whereas at one time the decisive factor of production was the land, and later capital — understood as a total complex of the instruments of production — today the decisive factor is increasingly man himself, that is, his knowledge, especially his scientific knowledge, his capacity for interrelated and compact organization, as well as his ability to perceive the needs of others and to satisfy them.”

Fr Percy comments:
“So the business or free economy is not the result of chance. Rather it is the result of intelligent human beings exercising their right to freedom in the economic sphere….The market and business economy is not a matter of chance, but is the direct result of human ingenuity and freedom.

“For the creation and establishment of the free market there must be protection, through the legislative and judicial system, of the right to private property. Rerum Novarum made this abundantly clear…the free market is not a law unto itself (and) must itself operate under the umbrella of the common good. Private action may need to be restricted when the common good requires it – when legitimate human needs are not satisfied by the market.”
[Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Connor Court Publishing, 2011, p 166-7].*

 

[Starrsmother]

“Monotonous!” Ah… a new condescending insult! Bravo!
So, just to be clear, Abu… we’re going to continue to willfully ignore the real-world abuses of capitalism, continue to substitute “free enterprise” for it when it suits your conversation, and generally pretend none of the things I mentioned are really happening, because you happen to choose this pie-in-the sky version instead.
That about it?

Jesus pretty much summed it up when He looked his disciples in the eye and said “The poor you will always have with you.” If that wasn’t prophetic --even for today when we have evolved so far from His generation who lived so simply—I don’t know what was. It interested me philosophically at one time, why, if Jesus adamantly was against poverty, that he didn’t just snap His fingers and end it. I mean, he healed lepers and he raised the dead. He forgave sins. Surely he could have rectified poverty. Instead, He simply let us know that there will always be poor people on this earth. He also never tried to over throw the secular roman government of His time–and infact, seemed perfectly comfortable following Jewish ritual—UNLESS it went against His message. He never said, just wait until they invent communism or socialism or Barack Obama becomes president of a place called the USA-- then there won’t be poverty. Instead, even his parables–which have withstood 2000+ years, He included rich men and poor men—bridegrooms and virgins–and then to top it off, he ate with pharisees and tax collectors as well as harlots and other sinners. Hmmmm…

Maybe God just expects us to do what we can personally–to get our hands a little dirty if you will—caring for the poor. Mental illness will always be with us. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to show charity by helping a poor of homeless vet on the street who still sees Vietnam in front of himself.People will lose their homes, be born to single moms with no earthly plan to care for them and jobs sources will end. Catholic Charities does a LOT to help these folks. United Way does a LOT to fund Planned Parenthood. But, unless you do your homework, you might not know that or might not know which charities use most of their funds for good and which others use most of their funds for administration. But giving to the United Way is so much EASIER! Hmmmm…

I wonder what Jesus realistically would tell us today–because He always seemed to act realistically to me back then–what would He advise us to do today?

 

[brjoseph]

Jesus pretty much summed it up when He looked his disciples in the eye and said “The poor you will always have with you.” If that wasn’t prophetic --even for today when we have evolved so far from His generation who lived so simply—I don’t know what was. It interested me philosophically at one time, why, if Jesus adamantly was against poverty, that he didn’t just snap His fingers and end it. I mean, he healed lepers and he raised the dead. He forgave sins. Surely he could have rectified poverty. Instead, He simply let us know that there will always be poor people on this earth. He also never tried to over throw the secular roman government of His time–and infact, seemed perfectly comfortable following Jewish ritual—UNLESS it went against His message. He never said, just wait until they invent communism or socialism or Barack Obama becomes president of a place called the USA-- then there won’t be poverty. Instead, even his parables–which have withstood 2000+ years, He included rich men and poor men—bridegrooms and virgins–and then to top it off, he ate with pharisees and tax collectors as well as harlots and other sinners. Hmmmm…

Maybe God just expects us to do what we can personally–to get our hands a little dirty if you will—caring for the poor. Mental illness will always be with us. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to show charity by helping a poor of homeless vet on the street who still sees Vietnam in front of himself.People will lose their homes, be born to single moms with no earthly plan to care for them and jobs sources will end. Catholic Charities does a LOT to help these folks. United Way does a LOT to fund Planned Parenthood. But, unless you do your homework, you might not know that or might not know which charities use most of their funds for good and which others use most of their funds for administration. But giving to the United Way is so much EASIER! Hmmmm…

I wonder what Jesus realistically would tell us today–because He always seemed to act realistically to me back then–what would He advise us to do today?

When the disciples came to Jesus and told him He should let the multitude go, because they’d been listening to Him long, and they hadn’t eaten, Jesus was extremely clear. He didn’t send the masses into the city, or suggest maybe some agency be contacted; He also didn’t ask WHY they hadn’t eaten, WHY they were in need, WHY they hasdn;t provided for themselves or WHY they were poor. He looked at his followers and said*, very *directly, “YOU feed them.”
I don’t believe for a second he’d say anything different to any of us today.

 

[Elizabeth502]

He didn’t …suggest maybe some agency be contacted;

including some government agency.

 

[Abu]

brjoseph #128
Jesus was extremely clear. “YOU feed them.”

Readers – notice that this evades the meaning that Jesus miraculously multiplies the five loaves and two fish to feed five thousand with much left over.

Unfortunately it is symptomatic of distortions which characterize the state of evasion with regard to the teaching of Jesus and St Paul, and reiterated by the Popes, which recognizes the right of economic initiative and says that this right is not only important to individuals but for the common good. The attempt to limit this right in favor of so-called equality suppresses or destroys the spirit of initiative or “the creative subjectivity of the citizen.” Solicitudo Rei Socialis, 1987, #42].

The efforts which have borne much fruit in feeding and helping the poor of the world, and encouraging them to self–sufficiency need to be continued; and all the more so with the demographic winter approaching and the fact that fewer bread winners will have to support a larger aging population.

 

[Starrsmother]

When the disciples came to Jesus and told him He should let the multitude go, because they’d been listening to Him long, and they hadn’t eaten, Jesus was extremely clear. He didn’t send the masses into the city, or suggest maybe some agency be contacted; He also didn’t ask WHY they hadn’t eaten, WHY they were in need, WHY they hasdn;t provided for themselves or WHY they were poor. He looked at his followers and said*, very *directly, “YOU feed them.”
I don’t believe for a second he’d say anything different to any of us today.

And this was my point exactly!!! I think Jesus expects us to get our hands a little dirty in doing charity—not simply choose what appears to be the easiest, least time consuming method and throw extra money that we don’t need at it. And if we are going to donate to an organization that will supposedly be doing charity in our name–I suspect that we should at least be willing to check out the organization to be sure where our donation is going.

 

[brjoseph]

Readers – notice that this evades the meaning that Jesus miraculously multiplies the five loaves and two fish to feed five thousand with much left over.

Unfortunately it is symptomatic of distortions which characterize the state of evasion with regard to the teaching of Jesus and St Paul, and reiterated by the Popes, which recognizes the right of economic initiative and says that this right is not only important to individuals but for the common good. The attempt to limit this right in favor of so-called equality suppresses or destroys the spirit of initiative or “the creative subjectivity of the citizen.” Solicitudo Rei Socialis, 1987, #42].

The efforts which have borne much fruit in feeding and helping the poor of the world, and encouraging them to self–sufficiency need to be continued; and all the more so with the demographic winter approaching and the fact that fewer bread winners will have to support a larger aging population.

Abu, first off, if you have an issue, it’s with Christ, not me… because that’s EXACTLY what the Savior told them. Sorry you don’t like it and I’m sorry it goes against your politics. But that’s what Jesus SAID. Period.
Secondly, you’re a bit self contradictory here. On the one hand you’re all about self sufficiency, but ou decry what you want to present to others as my “evasion” of Christ’s miracle. He didn’t give them a plan, or self sufficiency that day; he provided food when it was needed, and that food came from what little the Disciples had among themselves. The message is clear: give all to take care of others, and God will multiply it greatly.
…and that’s not “capitalism,” Jack. There’s no profit motive there. It’s not “free enterprtise” or a “free market.” It’s putting together your resources to meet the needs of others, and trusting Christ to make it work.
Unless, of course, you want to suggest that they sold the food.

 

[St_Francis]

Abu, first off, if you have an issue, it’s with Christ, not me… because that’s EXACTLY what the Savior told them. Sorry you don’t like it and I’m sorry it goes against your politics. But that’s what Jesus SAID. Period.
Secondly, you’re a bit self contradictory here. On the one hand you’re all about self sufficiency, but ou decry what you want to present to others as my “evasion” of Christ’s miracle. He didn’t give them a plan, or self sufficiency that day; he provided food when it was needed, and that food came from what little the Disciples had among themselves. The message is clear: give all to take care of others, and God will multiply it greatly.
…and that’s not “capitalism,” Jack. There’s no profit motive there. It’s not “free enterprtise” or a “free market.” It’s putting together your resources to meet the needs of others, and trusting Christ to make it work.
Unless, of course, you want to suggest that they sold the food.

I don’t think it’s an either/or situation. A relatively free market provides incentive for people to work a little harder to create extra wealth. Some of the extra wealth is used to help the poor.

If you have anything from a heavily regulated market-place to a (true) socialist system, then there is no incentive to work; in fact, there is a disincentive to work. The result is no excess wealth with which to care for the poor.

 

[St_Francis]

For example, the Dutch king made a speech in which he announced that Holland would draw back from being a welfare state towards being a participatory democracy (presumably with monarchy!) in which people would be responsible for themselves and their neighbors.

The Dutch economy has been suffering the effects of the recession and is not recovering well.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Interesting. And still unconvincing. To deliberately and willfully ignore the abuses of capitalism- the damage done to developing nations, slave wages and unregulated conditions in places chosen at the expense of woirkers in Western nations from which jobs are taken in favor of cheaper, less regulated conditions elsewhere, the damage done to the environment in the name of profit, the degradation of the working class in places where they have no voice, the poverty left behind in the countries from which jobs are taken and yet to which profits flow, the removal of those profits to offshore financial institutions to “protect” them from taxation, thus denying the country in which the “capitalists” live of any gain for the nation… and then attempt to defend that system as if it were “better” is a lie I can not swallow as a Christian.
I stand by my statement. The reality is that Capitalism is no more an “answer” than Socialism.
And despite the condescending tone implied in your post, to call that opinion “myopic” and “flawed” is laughable, and easily dismissed as little more than logically unsound, weak political apologetics.

 

[Abu]

brjoseph #132
There’s no profit motive there. It’s not “free enterprtise” or a “free market.” It’s putting together your resources to meet the needs of others, and trusting Christ to make it work.

Fancy prostituting the miracle to conjecture that food and other essentials can be miraculously multiplied without God’s command, for He mandated: “By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” [Gen 3:19].

The “resources” have to be produced – no wealth can be created until it is produced – that’s why the Catholic Late Scholastic system works so well to enable everyone to produce some wealth and to do with it as they choose through free-will. The economic laws are based on the principles of human action – of cause and effect involving God-given reason.

That’s why the great acknowledged St John Paul II reemphasized in Centesimus Annus, 1991, #42:
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”.

The failure is in not acknowledging that it is people that behave sinfully as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI taught: “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 in Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36). This applies to all who expect to be fed by others while refusing to work, (Robert Sock’s fantasy) and to all who haven’t yet realised that untold millions have been raised from poverty by the free enterprise endeavours of those who heed and follow the great Catholic Late Scholastics and the acknowledged St John Paul II in developing and encouraging the God–given talents put to good use in free enterprise.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Abu, I’m not sure I understand you. Are you suggesting that all needy people don’t work hard enough? Or are you saying something else?

 

[Abu]

Elizabeth502 #137
Are you suggesting that all needy people don’t work hard enough? Or are you saying something else?

No, and never have even thought that.

Simply, that all who expect to be fed by others while refusing to work, (which is Robert Sock’s fantasy) and to all [others] who haven’t yet realised how many have actually escaped poverty precisely because they have been assisted to work and thus raise their living standards – as shown previously. Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years, between 1990 and 2010 (post #103).

 

[Robert_Sock]

No, and never have even thought that.

Simply, that all who expect to be fed by others while refusing to work, (which is Robert Sock’s fantasy) and to all [others] who haven’t yet realised how many have actually escaped poverty precisely because they have been assisted to work and thus raise their living standards – as shown previously. Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years, between 1990 and 2010 (post #103).

And yet some 2.4 billion people live on less than than $2 a day (USD) in the world today! How long would you you say say it would take before extreme poverty is eliminated? I would say that we have a long way to go!

 

[Abu]

Robert Sock #139
I would say that we have a long way to go!

As long as governments and evil people, as well as misguided people who keep trashing free enterprise and failing to understand its benefits and acknowledge the progress which only free enterprise well employed can and has produced, while imagining cockamamie schemes which can only make matters worse – so will the rest of those in extreme poverty remain so.

 

[Robert_Sock]

As long as governments and evil people, as well as misguided people who keep trashing free enterprise and failing to understand its benefits and acknowledge the progress which only free enterprise well employed can and has produced, while imagining cockamamie schemes which can only make matters worse – so will the rest of those in extreme poverty remain so.

When you say ‘free enterprise’ do you mean ‘unregulated?’