My issue with capitalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Polak

Guest
Before anyone tries to make the claim, no, I am not arguing for communism, nor do I think it would be a better system than what we currently have. I am aware of how much heartache communism has caused in the world and it still causing.

There are of course a lot of reasons communism is so despised by people, but one key reason in relations to earnings, is that people get paid the same, no matter how hard they work and how much work they do. It basically rewards lazy people by allowing them to make the same as those who work much harder than them. This isn’t a fair system obviously.

The trouble with capitalism is, it doesn’t straighten that out. Yes sure, in some cases if you work a lot harder in life (study and get a good job) or put more works in at work, you’ll get paid more. The problem is, the very notion of capitalism isn’t based on ‘work harder to have more’, it’s based on, try to be clever and think of some way you can capitalise on a situation and make a ton of money from that, even at the expense of others. Thanks to this, we have doctors who have gone through years of medical studies and now work long hours, which include nights and working during festive holidays, to actually help people and in many cases save lives, making less than a model, who just poses in front of cameras with very little on, to name one example.

In some ways, capitalism also seems to reward lazy people just like communism. It is also the case in capitalism that some people need to be exploited in order for others to make a lot of money, at their expense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the problem comes when people make comparisons. For instance, I think many people work harder, longer hours to earn more without ever comparing themselves to supermodels or professional athletes.

There are professions that earn tremendous salaries that provide little in the way of service or necessary products. They don’t save lives or shape minds, provide services we need to live in this world or anything except entertainment. But Capitalism allows people to make money as they can, to start businesses not only based on need, but on whims, what is popular, or any number of other ideas.

We cannot begrudge others for the salaries they are able to earn. I think that is what capitalism represents for me=possibility.
 
Free markets work, but they need to backed up with a moral society and a good social safety net.

In America we have the issue of wanting all the rights but none of the responsibilities. Those with wealth are responsible for taking care of those who don’t. The solution isn’t removing the vehicle to achieve wealth, it’s forming a community that won’t leave its most vulnerable members hanging out to dry.
 
It’s very true

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."188 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2426 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God’s plan for man.209

2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.
 
Okay, you are talking about what the Church teaches. While is is good and true, it is not capitalism, which is the topic at hand.
 
Capitalism left to its own devices is immoral, so church teaching is necessary to remind people of their obligations to their communities. Economic policy can’t exist in a vacuum.
 
I never said people should not follow Church teachings, but nor do I believe capitalism is immoral. And since we will not agree, I wish you a good day. 🙂
 
Last edited:
http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-x...nts/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html
  1. There is another and deeper consideration which must not be lost sight of. As regards the State, the interests of all, whether high or low, are equal. The members of the working classes are citizens by nature and by the same right as the rich; they are real parts, living the life which makes up, through the family, the body of the commonwealth; and it need hardly be said that they are in every city very largely in the majority. It would be irrational to neglect one portion of the citizens and favor another, and therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due. To cite the wise words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “As the part and the whole are in a certain sense identical, so that which belongs to the whole in a sense belongs to the part.”(27) Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice - with that justice which is called distributive - toward each and every class alike.
 
@Irishmom2, I hope you’re not leaving the conversation altogether. @RhodesianSon has brought up some good points and didn’t categorically say that capitalism is evil.
 
Polak said:
The problem is, the very notion of capitalism isn’t based on ‘work harder to have more’, it’s based on, try to be clever and think of some way you can capitalise on a situation and make a ton of money from that, even at the expense of others.
Click to expand...
I’ll go back and read the above interchange, but here are my thoughts.

Your criticism is fair, and to the extent that our theology stresses the importance of the common good, Church officials would agree with you. No economic system is perfect; we’ve signed an unofficial contract to adopt capitalism and live with its many imperfections. This is not a license to give it a free pass or keep it unchecked. If it doesn’t serve the common good, it defies Church teaching. Not everyone is Catholic, obviously, but these values transcend our faith. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

My issue with modern American political “discourse” is that taxpayer-funded ventures that people like are labeled “common good”; ones that people don’t like are called “socialism.”
 
Last edited:
Immoral was probably too strong of word, open to being used immorally would probably be more accurate.

My main point is it’s a good vehicle for wealth creation and raising up the standard of living for people, but like any vehicle needs a good driver, and that’s why we can’t divorce responsibility to the communities we live in from our right to pursue economic prosperity. The responsibility comes before the right.
 
I think the main idea that needs to be brought in to American political discourse is subsidiarity.

I think our local communities should collect the bulk of taxes, and use those tax dollars to care for that community. The further you go up in government (local/city/county>state>federal) they should get less tax money, and perform less direct social aid.

The federal government should basically keep the states playing nice with each other and focus almost entirely on foreign policy.

State governments should handle things subsidized housing and medical assistance, minimum wages, etc.

City and county should deal with food banks/food assistance, elder care, child care, and local infrastructure.
 
Capitalism is not the problem its the people running it - its people who are flawed not the system - corruption ruins everything and it is everywhere.
 
So if people are the problem it’s almost like you need to… regulate the people to keep their excesses in check?
 
Polak said:
It is also the case in capitalism that some people need to be exploited in order for others to make a lot of money, at their expense.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m with you on this. Laissez-faire capitalism (akin to the US economy) leads to vast inequalities in wealth, which, as popes from Leo XIII onward have said, is itself an injustice.

There are thoughtful, Catholic democratic socialists (Elizabeth Bruenig is a prominent young one). And there are others that seem to suggest that the social teachings of the popes of the last 150 years have advocated a middle-ground called “distributism.” I don’t know where I fall out yet. But, it seems plain enough that both atheistic communism and laissez-faire capitalism are worthy of being condemned for fostering economic injustice.
 
Polak said:
The problem is, the very notion of capitalism isn’t based on ‘work harder to have more’, it’s based on, try to be clever and think of some way you can capitalise on a situation and make a ton of money from that, even at the expense of others.
Click to expand...
Why is the word “capital” in “capitalism”?
 
Polak said:
. The problem is, the very notion of capitalism isn’t based on ‘work harder to have more’, it’s based on, try to be clever and think of some way you can capitalise on a situation and make a ton of money from that, even at the expense of others.
Click to expand...
Gosh, the things they forgot to tell me while getting my Ph.D. in Economics . . .

:roll_eyes: 🤯

Capitalism is nothing more, nor less, than the owners of capital receiving the payment and proceeds of its use.

A model being paid silly amounts has NOTHING to do with capitalism . . .

That she can get paid silly amounts is the consequence of having a “free market”, which typically (but not always) accompanies capitalism.
 
Last edited:
There’s always social democracy, which is capitalism but with more taxes for redistribution.
There’s a reason why Norway has a higher home ownership rate than even America.
 
dochawk said:
That she can get paid silly amounts is the consequence of having a “free market”, which typically (but not always) accompanies capitalism.
Click to expand...
people are fools, they buy junk they don’t need because a model, athlete, etc advertise it, then cry they are poor and there is inequity.

these models, athletes, etc. wouldn’t make money if people weren’t enamored with them and lived within their means.

do you need those $1200.00 sneakers made for a few bucks in china?

when you buy those Nike shoes, Apple phones you pay the salary of the model, you allow the sweatshops to exist, etc. stop supporting them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top