Pope criticizes the ‘cruelty’ of capitalism

[manualman]

V p t,

I gotta ask? How do you feed and clothe yourself? Does your line of work permit you to compare workers (of the same general field) in a government or highly protective union environment versus those employed in the free market? I do. I’m a civil engineer. Believe me, the difference is usually (some exceptions) DRAMATIC between public and private sector people.

Have you devised a superior economic system yet? One that provides both motivation for fallen man to work AND regulates the distribution of resources ‘fairly’ (and please define what that means in your system) given that those in charge of the system are ALSO all fallen men.

If so, I’m dying to hear about it!

 

[Orionthehunter]

Hi Keikiolu,
I agree we do not differ greatly in what is essential.
You seem to define, as indeed many do, ‘capitalism’ as somthing which is not ‘communism’.
My definition is much more precise, and I believe that Benedicts definition is also more precise, though it may differ from mine.
As money is a medium of exchange, hence trade, it represents property or capital.
So Capitalism and Monetarism are closely related philosophies, indeed, they are highly overlapping sets of ideas.
The ‘isms’ of both of these philosophies define a system of disciplines which are binding upon followers of these philosophies.
I accept that modern definitions of religion refer to worship of G_d, but Taoism, Kung-fu-tzu, and Buddhism make no definite reference to G_d, so the modern definition of religion is defective.
As I said, the word ‘religion’ is derived from the Latin ‘ligare’ to bind.
Thus any adherents to a binding philosophy, are indeed following a religion, and the essence of that religion is the principle of that philosophy.
Capitalists do not worship money.
They do however bind themselves to a philosophy calculated to enhance the welfare of money, they call in ‘sound ecconomics’.
Now this sound ecconomics has no consideration for the welfare of the population, only for multiplying capital at whatever expense to the population or the environment.
It is this perverted principle which I see as evil
It is this perverted principle, which I believe, Our Lord dubbed Mammon.
It is this perverted principle which Benedict condemns, but not vehemently enough.

Capitalism is an economic system for the distribution of goods, services, land, labor, and capital. Democracy is a political system for the direct political power to rest in the governed. Republican democracy is a political system for political power to rest in representatives elected by the governed. Public transportation is a system for the collective movement of people. Our courts are a system for the resolution of legal matters (criminal and civil). Public education is a system for education of the youth.

All of these instruments are neutral with regard to morality. Individuals who fraudently abuse capitalism are not an indictment of capitalism. Voters who exercise their democratic rights to the detriment of the monority are not an indictment on democracy. Nazi’s who use trains to get people to gas chambers is not an indictment of public transportation. Bad judges are not an indictment on our court system. Bad teachers are not an indictment of the concept of universal education.

The good or evil done with these instruments are the responsibility of the individuals.

As a person who participates willingly and enthusiastically in the practice of capitalism (as are you if you exchange your labor for pay and use your pay to purchase goods and services as well as save for retirement, etc.), I have not once been in a situation where capitalism has made me do anything in violation to my communal obligations as a Christian. The statement that capitalism is a “binding philosophy” regarding morality is wrong. it is a instrument giving me the freedom to do good or evil. God so loved us that He gave us the freedom to choose to follow Him or to reject Him. I’m at a loss why we should want an economic system that makes decisions for us as we try to do His work on earth.

Science is a discipline to enhance growth of knowledge in scientific matters. It is neutral to the morality of the knowledge and its use. This lies in the hands of the scientist.

Economic is as defined by Websters “the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth.” Sound economics is not to “enhance the welfare of money” but to optimize the production, distribution and consumption of wealth.

Capitalism is one of many economic systems available to potentially optimize production, distribution and consumption of wealth. Except in the case of capitalism, where every transaction is delegated to the individual, all other economic systems call for the delegation of decisions of production, distribution and consumption to a “super elite.” I for one can’t think of a single person I am willing to delegate these decisions to with regard to me or my family. Furthermore, I would never dream of depriving these decisions of another.

 

[seekerz]

Even so, most “poor” in this country own a car, tv and a home.

.

Most poor in this county have all that? Indeed? Where do you live?

 

[Vaclav]

Do you work in economics or finance Orion?

 

[Orionthehunter]

I hear a lot that “Capitalism is just an economic system” meaning that it has nothing to do with the rest of society, as if it existed outside of politics, foreign affairs, democracy, social assumptions, etc.

It does not. Any economic system comes with assumptions and generates its own peculiar logic into society and the history of that society. To separate American capitalism (or whatever you wish to call it) from the rest of American society is ridiculous. It is an impossibility. It would be akin to separating one’s personality from oneself. It can be changed, sure, but it cannot be viewed upon as existing in complete isolation.

You are quite correct that it is hard to discuss capitalism without delving into political theory as a free economy must have a free political system. Capitalism can’t really work under a political system like the Chinese. They are inter-related. However, this thread is about capitalism as an economic system.

But as an economic system there are some realities that can’t be ignored.

First, principles of economic support for the downtrodden will not be addressed by capitalism except to the degree it enhances wealth and efficient distribution of goods and services, land, labor and capital. While it isn’t direct, it is hard to argue the fact that over the last 20 years, economic growth in the US (and thus general standard of living) has been greater in the U.S. than other developed democracies who have a more socialist economic system.

Second, because the system will not inherently insure the minimum needs of all people, it is incumbent on individuals and their charities to provide the bulk of the support. In my mind, this is a good thing. If all the minimum needs were met by the government, the fortunate would have no place to practice Christian charity. It is us as individuals that Christ called to enter into the suffering of our neighbor. He didn’t call for us to delegate it to our government.

Third, because of the abundance created by the efficiency of capitalism, much is required of us. What a blessing to have abundance to share with our neighbors. We need to better respond to this blessing (“of whom much is given, much is expected”).

Fourth, the downtrodden getting a monthly check from the government to meet their minimum needs isn’t delivered with the gentle hand of Christ. But, charity delivered by Christians via personal efforts and via their charities does help give these people the dignity they are due. Does anyone believe that the fact that we are now entering our fourth generation of people who have never known the self-esteem that can be gained from self-provision is a good thing? As an American society, we have assuaged our guilt by herding our poor and downtrodden into godless ghettos with monthly checks where they see no hope for a better life.

Personally, my wife and I have witnessed what can be accomplished via Catholic counseling, catholic day shelters, and Catholic soup kitchens. In all cases, the people are treated with a dignity they never recieve in government programs. Why? Government programs do not incorporate Christ in their model.

Furthermore, after years of involvement, I’ve come to believe that generally such government programs are evil. Yes, evil. Besides segregating the poor and downtrodden out of sight and mind, besides allowing us to pretend that someone else or the government is responsible for helping the poor, and besides undeniable evidence that it has perpetuated dependency, it denies the poor and downtrodden the personal compassion called for by Christ.

Compassion requires a personal entering into the suffering. And, our personal compassoin will engender from the suffering a response to the helping hand of Christ. I’m not interested in economic aid to the poor so they can have a good life here. I’m interested in it to satisfy my call from Christ to be a witness of the Good News and gaining souls for Christ.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

V p t,

I gotta ask? How do you feed and clothe yourself? Does your line of work permit you to compare workers (of the same general field) in a government or highly protective union environment versus those employed in the free market? I do. I’m a civil engineer. Believe me, the difference is usually (some exceptions) DRAMATIC between public and private sector people.

Have you not read what I have written?
I have said MANY times that I have no problem with HONEST MONEY.

Have you devised a superior economic system yet? One that provides both motivation for fallen man to work AND regulates the distribution of resources ‘fairly’ (and please define what that means in your system) given that those in charge of the system are ALSO all fallen men.

If so, I’m dying to hear about it!

Of course I have not.
I do not presume the title of messiah.
As long as there are selfish people in places of authority, and unfortunately, democracy seems tilted in that direction, either the ecconomy will be abdicated to those selfish people, capitalism, or brute force must be exercised to steer the ecconomy for the greater good, or the erroneously percieved greater good, socialism.
One system gives private individuals the right to impose slavery, the other gives that bright to the state.
Both systems are thus evil.
Many have sought a middle way, many have failed.

 

[Orionthehunter]

In a word, yes.
I think he lacked the courage to nail his colours to the mast.
Our Lord condemned capitalism, he called it Mammon, and damned it as anti-G_d. I think it is high time that the Church stopped dilly-dallying the point. Capitalism = Mammon = Anti-G_d = evil.

Capitalism is a religion which demands obedience to monetary principles to the exclusion of charity. Thus it is anti-G_d, thus it is evil.

Capitalism is as I described.
It is a belief system, nay, a religion, which is concerned solely with measures to improve monetary integrity. It has no room in its crede for measures to relieve any suffering which adherence to these aims may cause.

True. Yet the Samaritan, in paying the innkeeper, delegated responsibility of charity to that innkeeper, so, yes, you can delegate charity.

No, It is entirely possible to acquire trwo coats by accident. How many toasters have been given as wedding presents to the same couple? No, but the church did exclude any who failed to comply with church law. It is reasonable to call someone who behaves in a non-Christian manner, a non Christian, even an anti-Christian. Call a spade a spade! A man without charity belongs to SATAN!
Or if he refuses, accept that he belongs to SATAN, and has no place in our community.
Let him be anathema.
Let him be outcast.
Let him be damned to perdition.
Let us not be mealy mouthed. Let us be plain as to what is acceptable, and what is not.

Capitalism is just another name for monetarism. It defines a set of disciplines designed to enhance the welfare of capital, or money. It is completely unconcerned with the welfare of people. . . . These disciplines are the essence of a philosophy, and of a governing principle. So it is a religion, that is, a binding philosophy, from ligare, to bind.
In setting Mammon against G_d, Our Lord is setting like against like. That is, money, as a governing and binding principle against the love of G_d.

Capitalists do however bind themselves to a philosophy calculated to enhance the welfare of money, they call in ‘sound ecconomics’. Now this sound ecconomics has no consideration for the welfare of the population, only for multiplying capital at whatever expense to the population or the environment. It is this perverted principle which I see as evil. It is this perverted principle, which I believe, Our Lord dubbed Mammon. It is this perverted principle which Benedict condemns, but not vehemently enough.

Have you not read what I have written? I have said MANY times that I have no problem with HONEST MONEY. Of course I have not. I do not presume the title of messiah. As long as there are selfish people in places of authority, and unfortunately, democracy seems tilted in that direction, either the ecconomy will be abdicated to those selfish people, capitalism, or brute force must be exercised to steer the ecconomy for the greater good, or the erroneously percieved greater good, socialism. One system gives private individuals the right to impose slavery, the other gives that bright to the state. Both systems are thus evil. Many have sought a middle way, many have failed.

Voco, I know you claim to have no problem with honest money. However, your above statements are clear that a person who practices capitalism (the principle of two parties freely and without coercion entering into an agreement to exchange goods or services for money) are evil.

Furthermore, you assert that an advocate of capitalism has placed that on a higher plain than their religion. You might admit that you aren’t a Messiah but your claim to see the hearts of each advocate of capitalism to make such a determination is a presumes a perogative that is exclusive of God.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Orionthehunter,

Voco, I know you claim to have no problem with honest money. However, your above statements are clear that a person who practices capitalism (the principle of two parties freely and without coercion entering into an agreement to exchange goods or services for money) are evil.

Furthermore, you assert that an advocate of capitalism has placed that on a higher plain than their religion. You might admit that you aren’t a Messiah but your claim to see the hearts of each advocate of capitalism to make such a determination is a presumes a perogative that is exclusive of God.

The problem here is we have differing definitions of capitalism.
You describe the simple idea, I describe the philosophy behind the idea.
There is NOTHING wrong with TRADE or HONEST money.
What there is which is definitely evil, is a philosophy of monetary ‘welfare’
I do understand that some cannot associate welfare with other than human societies or persons, but, see, you can consider the welfare of animals, or the conservation of plants, or artefacts.
this also is an aspect of welfare, perhaps stretching its meaning.
The philosophy of the welfare of capital is dedicated to the conservation, if not the growth of capital, and struggles against anything which might devalue it.
Unfortunately, a fixed money supply in a growing population is a recipe for disaster.
That is what makes it evil.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Dear Orionthehunter,

The problem here is we have differing definitions of capitalism.
You describe the simple idea, I describe the philosophy behind the idea.
There is NOTHING wrong with TRADE or HONEST money.
What there is which is definitely evil, is a philosophy of monetary ‘welfare’
I do understand that some cannot associate welfare with other than human societies or persons, but, see, you can consider the welfare of animals, or the conservation of plants, or artefacts.
this also is an aspect of welfare, perhaps stretching its meaning.
The philosophy of the welfare of capital is dedicated to the conservation, if not the growth of capital, and struggles against anything which might devalue it.
Unfortunately, a fixed money supply in a growing population is a recipe for disaster.
That is what makes it evil.

Like someone once said “you are entitled to your opinion but your are not entitled to your own facts”, meaningful debate does not allow you to your own definition. Capitalism is a simple definition both in theory and in practice. Your definition that it is about the practice of the central bank to regulate the medium of exchange (monetary policy and fixed money supply) is a separate issue than the morality of capitalism.

Furthermore, the vehicle of a central bank to regulate the medium of exchange is neither moral or immoral. It is merely an instrument. Morality or immorality is a function of the execution of those given the responsibility to provide a stable medium of exchange (money by definition is an intangible medium of exchange supported by perception of value). Your beef is with either the execution of the duties of the central bank or even the existance of a central bank. Different discussion for a different thread.

 

[Keikiolu]

Dear Orionthehunter,

The problem here is we have differing definitions of capitalism.
You describe the simple idea, I describe the philosophy behind the idea.
There is NOTHING wrong with TRADE or HONEST money.
What there is which is definitely evil, is a philosophy of monetary ‘welfare’
I do understand that some cannot associate welfare with other than human societies or persons, but, see, you can consider the welfare of animals, or the conservation of plants, or artefacts.
this also is an aspect of welfare, perhaps stretching its meaning.
The philosophy of the welfare of capital is dedicated to the conservation, if not the growth of capital, and struggles against anything which might devalue it.
Unfortunately, a fixed money supply in a growing population is a recipe for disaster.
That is what makes it evil.

Voco, I dare say, is a typical adolescent “quasi-socialist” utopian.

That sums up basically everything he’s said.

“Money is not evil, but any use of it is evil, unless it isn’t because that use is intentionally good.”

“Not being nice is evil, and evil sucks!”

“People ought to be honest, but not within any system whatsoever, as any ‘system’ is an evil, which makes them dishonest, which they shouldn’t be.”

Voco,… I’d suggest actually thinking before speaking, buckeroo.

What you say is generally obvious, yet mostly meaningless, and the obviously meaningless doesn’t help the rest of us very much.

…but thanks for trying…!!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[mrteachersir]

Capitalism was promoted first by Adam Smith, as a term that described the principle of how a free, un-regulated market would work. He was stating his observations on how a capitalist economic philosophy, when applied to a national economy (as opposed to a local or traditional situation), would impact a people.

Smith was acting 1) as a scientist, and 2) as conjecturer in his observations. He observed how supply, demand, labor markets, production markets, and prices worked together, as well as how people freely go about meeting their wants and needs. He then used conjecture to generalize his observations to a national level. He was merely speculating how a “natural law” (as he saw it) would impact a nation as a whole (particularly a nation with government-supported monopolies–East India Trading Company–and economic restrictions on its people).

Capitalism works because of self-interest. I am interested in healthy living, so I shop at the stores that provide me the healthiest food for the lowest cost. If only I am interested in healthy living, no one will provide me food. The more people interested in something, the more likely that thing will be produced to meet “our” needs/wants. Any physical need/want can be obtained this way (as a public school SS teacher, I would argue education can be obtained this way as well). Thus, the wants/needs of the people can be provided (assuming they have wisely conserved their hard-earned money to purchase said wants/needs).

I firmly believe that it is in the self-interest of employers to pay their workers the maximum they can afford (while still making profits). In a purely selfish means, this ensures that the workers will be able to afford what they are producing (which in turn gives more profits). It also fits in with the Catechism’s statements on what a person should be paid (so it is moral as well). Likewise, it is in the self-interest of those who are well-to-do to work in charity to better the lives of the poor: it provides more people who can afford to purchase goods and services, while at the same time fitting in with Christ’s teachings. In those respects, capitalism (the use of capital for the creation of more capital) can provide for the physical welfare of the people.

The problem is the fallen nature we as humans have, and this is the big issue with capitalism: rampant individualism. We have come to believe in the welfare of ourselves (and maybe our families) in spite of what others need. Capitalism then becomes materialistic, and only then does Voco’s statements become true. It is this that the Catechism condemns, the materialistic individualism that places the physical desires of the individual above the needs of others and indeed above God Himself. Yet this individualism is not inherent within capitalism…it is an unnecessary and evil by-product of it. It is the underlying principle behind the abortion and contraception movements.

Hope I didn’t confuse any one…I’ve been known to do that!

 

[Vaclav]

this is the big issue with capitalism: rampant individualism

I agree. I tend to disagree, respectfully, with yours and Orion’s views on how free the market needs to be (I have no problem with the way Sweden, for example, runs their nation) but on this issue we have agreement.

Look at the works of someone like Ayn Rand, who has influenced very important people like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan. Rand took self-interest to a point that one no longer needed God. She also claimed that the poor of society weren’t to be helped at all because they are “parasites” living off of the achievers who do well in the beautiful free market system (which has pretty much replaced God).

To a lot of libertarians and devoted extreme capitalists, Atlas Shrugged is the Bible and John Galt the messiah.

So, I have no problem with good economics and the varying views it brings. Yet, I do worry about this extremism as symbolised by Rand and very well viewed as “rampant individualism.”

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Like someone once said “you are entitled to your opinion but your are not entitled to your own facts”, meaningful debate does not allow you to your own definition. Capitalism is a simple definition both in theory and in practice. Your definition that it is about the practice of the central bank to regulate the medium of exchange (monetary policy and fixed money supply) is a separate issue than the morality of capitalism.

You fall into the trap of defining the incomplete, or open system. Only a closed system is complete, and capitalism will not function without the central banks.
The central banks are an INTEGRAL part of capitalism.

Furthermore, the vehicle of a central bank to regulate the medium of exchange is neither moral or immoral. It is merely an instrument. Morality or immorality is a function of the execution of those given the responsibility to provide a stable medium of exchange (money by definition is an intangible medium of exchange supported by perception of value). Your beef is with either the execution of the duties of the central bank or even the existance of a central bank. Different discussion for a different thread.

This is like describing a computer without reference to the software.
The central banks are in effect the computer.
The way they operate is their operating system or software.
Like body and soul.
The body is not responsible for the sins of a man, it is the soul that is responsible.
But the body without the soul is a corpse, an incomplete system.
They cannot be separated in function, only in death.
Capitalism is incomplete without the central banks.
The central banks are meaningless without their operating system.
It is the inherrant evil in the central banks’ operating systems that are the essential evils in capitalism, and this is inseparable from capitalism.

 

[Nagoda]

So heres my thoughts on all of this

Some of you lot might remember i had a big socialism versus christianity debate before the big server change a while back. im happy to say im now an ex-marxist but would still consider myself a christian communist although a non practicing one.

i reject marxism for two main reason: its atheism and its materialism

i also reject capitalism for those two same reasons

both systems are godless because they put man in the centre and not god

hence while communism might have good intentions it wont work

im still not altogether sure if capitalism in this day and age is good because it seems its intentions are to make a buck over everything else these days. thats just flat out wrong to me.

a theocracy in large numbers wont work because everytime thats been done it pretty much turns into a nasty dictatorship with political corruption (be that a fundamentalist islamic state or the church in the middle ages). about the only theocracy that has worked in my mind is vatican city because its too small to do any significant amount of damage.

the stance i take is that no government will ever work right now. why? the fallen nature of man and us kicking god out of the picture. this is why i refuse to vote, because it will perpetuate a vicious system by whomever i vote for.

so, the only thing that will work in my mind is for jesus to come back and for god to set up his kingdom here on earth, for the father and his children to work together. only then will you find a working capitalism or communism because god’s at the center and in control. i can start practicing my christian communism then with god at the helm, and you guys can do the same with your christian capitalism. just my thoughts. oh i dont think i mentioned it but yeah the pope’s right in my eyes. but i guess thats obvious huh?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco, I dare say, is a typical adolescent “quasi-socialist” utopian.

Judge not that thou be not judged.

That sums up basically everything he’s said.

“Money is not evil, but any use of it is evil, unless it isn’t because that use is intentionally good.”

That is not what I said. In a nut-shell, I was saying that money itself is not evil, but the way the money supply is organised, is.

“Not being nice is evil, and evil sucks!”

“People ought to be honest, but not within any system whatsoever, as any ‘system’ is an evil, which makes them dishonest, which they shouldn’t be.”

Voco,… I’d suggest actually thinking before speaking, buckeroo.

Dear Friend, I confess that as I wrote this, I was being hassled to get off the computer, because tea was being served, so I rounded off the arguments hurriedly and incompletely.

What you say is generally obvious, yet mostly meaningless, and the obviously meaningless doesn’t help the rest of us very much.

There is only one thing more stupid than making an obvious observation, and that is not making it.
All of Einstein’s theories were derived from observations which were obvious. He just put them together by asking the stupid questions.

…but thanks for trying…!!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

et cum spiritu tuo

 

[Grow_in_Faith]

If everyone was a good Christian, then capitalism would probably be unncessary. But, because many people only care about themselves, that is not possible. Although capitalism has problems, I don’t see a better alternative.

 

[Orionthehunter]

You fall into the trap of defining the incomplete, or open system. Only a closed system is complete, and capitalism will not function without the central banks.
The central banks are an INTEGRAL part of capitalism.This is like describing a computer without reference to the software.
The central banks are in effect the computer.
The way they operate is their operating system or software.
Like body and soul.
The body is not responsible for the sins of a man, it is the soul that is responsible.
But the body without the soul is a corpse, an incomplete system.
They cannot be separated in function, only in death.
Capitalism is incomplete without the central banks.
The central banks are meaningless without their operating system.
It is the inherrant evil in the central banks’ operating systems that are the essential evils in capitalism, and this is inseparable from capitalism.

Central banks are INTEGRAL to any economic system which uses money as the medium of exchange. It is integral to the use of money whether it be in a communist system (Soviet Union/Romania had central banks), socialist system (France/Sweden have central banks), and capitalist systems.

Money is an intangible medium of exchange based on percieved value of the traders. For example, if I think that 1,000 paper $1 bills are worth more than a cow, I won’t buy the cow. The reason I think these pieces of paper are worth more is because I think somebody else will give me something of more value with the $1,000 at another place or in the future.

In the end, central banks have three choices with regards to the effect of their policies long-term effects (even though they may have different short-term effects). They can be inflationary (decreasing the value of money in the future), deflationary (increasing the value of money in the future), or stable. Such a policies are available in a communist, socialist, quasi-capitalist/socialist, and capitalist system.

If you have a beef with our or any other central banks policies, it is a subject for another thread.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Central banks are INTEGRAL to any economic system which uses money as the medium of exchange. It is integral to the use of money whether it be in a communist system (Soviet Union/Romania had central banks), socialist system (France/Sweden have central banks), and capitalist systems.

Money is an intangible medium of exchange based on percieved value of the traders. For example, if I think that 1,000 paper $1 bills are worth more than a cow, I won’t buy the cow. The reason I think these pieces of paper are worth more is because I think somebody else will give me something of more value with the $1,000 at another place or in the future.

In the end, central banks have three choices with regards to the effect of their policies long-term effects (even though they may have different short-term effects). They can be inflationary (decreasing the value of money in the future), deflationary (increasing the value of money in the future), or stable. Such a policies are available in a communist, socialist, quasi-capitalist/socialist, and capitalist system.

If you have a beef with our or any other central banks policies, it is a subject for another thread.

Hi Orion,
We seem at last to be talking the same language.
We seem to be agreed that the machine of ecconomics is virtually the same, whether it is capitalist, comunist, socialist, or any other shade of pink liberal.
The essential difference is the operating system driving this machine.
In the non-capitalist systems, there are social drivers taking primary control of the ecconomy, some of which will have a detrimental effect on the value of money. To capitalists, this is anathema, for they insist that the control if the money supply is paramount, so the capitalist drivers control the ecconomy directly to maintain a stable level of low-level-inflation.
It has to be accepted, even by red-blooded commonists, that so-called capitalism does have some social drivers, for if the effect of strangling the money supply is too harsh, the ecconomy will collapse, possibly into civil war.
Those of us who condemn capitalism, are in fact condemning this extreme form, which lacks the social imput into the operating system drivers.
In effect, there are two opposing drivers in any ecconomic system, the excess of either at the expense of the other will lead to disaster.
Like in this world, if everything was controlled by forgiving love, nothing would ever get done. That is why dreams of Utopia always come to nothing. Steel cannot be made without fire. this is the place of the tempter. Actually, the Latin word we translate as ‘tempt’, really means ‘test’.
The early Christian church tried, and with some early success, to run itself as communist units, maybe you might prefer kibbutzim.
These kibbutzniks reviled legalistic monetary regulation. Contracts were made on the shake of a hand. Hence the damnation of oath-taking. Yes, there was a simplistic attitude to the machinery of money.
Money was defined by the weight of gold or silver, which was essentially short-term limited. Successful military campagns mght increase the total volume of gold or silver in circulation, but that was the limit to what control there was on the money supply.
Thus the pricing of chattels was not controlled by the money supply, but by the availability of chattels. Monetarist dream of going back to these ‘golden’ days, not remembering how much hardship was involved.
In short, there is no longer capitalism or communism, only a variety of shades of mixed ecconomies.
These ecconomies have monetaristic drivers, and social drivers.
The monetaristic driver is Mammon, the social driver is Love.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Voco, I dare say, is a typical adolescent “quasi-socialist” utopian.

Judge not that thou be not judged.

The Hannity defense…!

Great…

Quote:

That sums up basically everything he’s said.

“Money is not evil, but any use of it is evil, unless it isn’t because that use is intentionally good.”
That is not what I said. In a nut-shell, I was saying that money itself is not evil, but the way the money supply is organised, is.

OK. Have fun defining “good organization of money” that isn’t some form of capitalism.

Quote:
“Not being nice is evil, and evil sucks!”

“People ought to be honest, but not within any system whatsoever, as any ‘system’ is an evil, which makes them dishonest, which they shouldn’t be.”

Voco,… I’d suggest actually thinking before speaking, buckeroo.
Dear Friend, I confess that as I wrote this, I was being hassled to get off the computer, because tea was being served, so I rounded off the arguments hurriedly and incompletely.

That’s cool. Trying to deal with the wacky issue of economics as a tool for good as opposed to it’s rather easy use as a tool for evil is tricky enough without being under pressure…!!

I feel for 'ya, dude…!

Quote:
What you say is generally obvious, yet mostly meaningless, and the obviously meaningless doesn’t help the rest of us very much.
There is only one thing more stupid than making an obvious observation, and that is not making it.
All of Einstein’s theories were derived from observations which were obvious. He just put them together by asking the stupid questions.

That is definitely true…!! I like to call those wonderful statements of the obvious that no one seems to have gotten around to actually saying out loud BFO’s,… “Blinding Flashes of the OBVIOUS!”

I wasn’t so much “complaining” about the obviousness of what I was hearing, but about the meaninglessness of it.

Quote:
…but thanks for trying…!!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
et cum spiritu tuo

Mahalo! And the Spirit right back at’cha, kanaka maika’i…!!

May your weather be lovely and inspiring today…!

(( No,… I’m not in the islands, but it happens to be a nifty day in northern California today, for a change, and I’d rather everyone enjoy it along with me if possible. ))

 

[Greg27]

Clearly capitalism places some difficult demands on the Christian. As Christians we are enjoined to not to love money greedily as is warned in 1 Timothy: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” And it is not for nothing many saints and masters of the spiritual life have condemned lust for wealth as one of the capital vices.

I think though, it is a mistake to see money in itself as an evil. It is better to see money as a ‘good’, a good like health, private property, or natural resources. The Church teaches in fact that private property (the fruit of work and the money it earns) is a legitimate good to be sought and protected by law. The Church also teaches in its social justice policy that it is not wrong for a business to operate for a profit (in fact in the business world, without a profit no other goods can flow to people like shareholders and employees).

The cornerstone of the Christian life, outside the priesthood or consecrated religious life, is either the single life or marriage. The Church’s priests and religious need material resources and money in order to function properly, from funding of seminaries and universities to the repair, construction, maintenance and upkeep of churches, cathedrals, and monastaries. People in the single life and marriage also need money and material goods in order to properly care for themselves and their needs, to help fund goods in society such as law enforcement, the courts, education, and public works (electrical power, water supply, roads, transport, etc) and those in families need a decent living to properly feed, educate and nurture their children and raise them in a healthy environment.

In the Bible, Jesus himself worked as a carpenter, some of the Apostles as fishermen, and St Paul made tents for a living, as well as being a doctor in Jewish Law. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that either work or earning a living are evils to be avoided, and even in the consecrated religious life, religious are expected to work as well as pray and contemplate God, so each community is self sufficient (as can be seen in the Rule of St Benedict for example).

The problem is when we make money an idol. When money or acquiring it become our main or sole end in life, and that becomes the most important thing, it becomes an idol. So it is as other things in life can become idols, such as sex, consumer goods, and so on, which take the place of God. If the main aim of our life is simply to acquire more and more, merely to please ourselves or to gratify our physical desires, or for reasons of envy, then that obscures the virtue of charity which tends to self-empty and share.

A lot of capitalism brings good in the sense that it creates employment and more wealth in society, and this can help improve the life of individuals and communities, destroy poverty, and make it easier to raise and maintain stable families. But a lot of capitalism can be pernicious in the sense it makes us greedy, insecure, selfish, and hard-hearted to the poor, and it becomes our idol in the place of God, which was always a temptation in Israel when wealth and good times came. It is in this light capitalism and its advocacy should be judged, but Catholics should also read some of what the Church’s rich thinking on the issue suggests, particularly the excellent works by Pope John Paul II (who was a professor of social ethics before becoming a Pope).