What is wrong with capitalism?

[Jonatello]

You are in error. Up to about 200 years ago 95% of mankind lived in what we call absolut poverty, meaning hunger was a usual problem.

the abundance has always been there. of course, man (in certain regions especially) has had to learn how to best tap into it, but learning how to access it was not dependent on capitalism nor the domination of resources by a few.

several socialistic countries, most prominently Soviet Union and China managed to have starvation on a large scale although the technology to produce enough food was avaible.

socialism has its problems (especially pure socialism) you cannot compare tyrannical regimes to democratically guided socialism. Are public libraries the first step to soviet starvation?

So no, the abundance is not simply there, man has to do the right things to realy have access

that depends on many things, but yes of course…for most people food isn’t going to simply fall in our laps without some know-how

and the way society functions is one of those things that can be done right or wrong.

yes, but the ability for a village to grow/gather food, provide shelter, and be inventive is in no way dependent on capitalism or domination of resources by the few. Let’s not forget the context of this global abundance point.

In both cases there is a law and a sufficient reason to limit ownership of the items for specific groups. Its no general limitation and there are lots of other people who one can give cars or guns to.

and in the hypothetical case of legal limits on percentage of finite resources 1 person is allowed to control, there would obviously be a law, there would be others whom those resources could be given to, and there is a sufficient reason.

And you dance around the question:
What harm did Steve Jobs do?

you brought up Jobs, not me. i did not dance. You keep arguing that he’s not a criminal and I keep agreeing with you.

I don’t know enough about his wealth, assets, or the resources he controlled (although I will say Apple has always struck me as having serious monopolistic tendencies) to explain in any specifics how his domination of those things hurt people.

You claim anyone owning lots of means of production of something like that harms others.

Lots is a vague term. My claim is that anyone in control of a large PORTION of the total means of production harms others. In other words, monopolizing opportunity is bad for society.

 

[Abu]

Robert Sock #4
Capitalism leads to corporatism, which is not bad because corporatism lends itself to socialism/communism. Neither socialism or communism needs to be anti-religious.
JRKH #9
Communism, like any other economic system can be perfectly moral if the people themselves are moral.
Look at Acts 4:32-37 and see a wonderful example of this in action. The people are freely associating, and are distributing based on need.
I will not deny that Communism is not terribly practical in anything resembling a large scale but the theory itself is morally neutral
Jonatello #10
any system which allows for the resources that everybody needs to be gobbled up and controlled by a small number of the strongest/greediest/most-ambitious people whose actions can’t be monitored and refereed by the community is a recipe for tyranny
pure capitalism naturally becomes crony capitalism which becomes oligarchy.
Centurionguard #23
The very fact that it is venerable to abuse as we see very evident today makes it ridiculous to say there’s (“nothing wrong with capitalism”). No governmental system is perfect.

It is essential for Catholics, and everyone else, to know what the Church teaches and why.

Both socialism and communism are anti-religious, and morally condemned:
Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #120: “If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”
“We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel.” (#128).

Centesimus Annus, Bl John Paul; II, 1991, #12:
“By defining the nature of the socialism of his day as the suppression of private property, Leo XIII arrived at the crux of the problem.
“…the Socialists encourage the poor man’s envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all…; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community."

Free enterprise (Marx’s “capitalism”) has nothing to do with a “governmental system” but was developed by Catholic monks from the ninth century and the principles enunciated by the great Catholic Late Scholastics. Thus, both Bl John Paul II are Pope Benedict XVI have affirmed free enterprise and called on people to act morally.

“We see in Acts 4:34-35, 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.”
So religious communities may have prayer in common, goods in common and spiritual goals, but they are not the evil of communism which has no spiritual objectives and aims to direct and control everyone and everything to evil.

 

[JRKH]

Abu,
Thank yo for the quotes.

Peace
James

 

[Warrenton]

Before trying to answer the thread question, please take a look at the following “code of conduct” for a government:

Good afternoon!

Conceptually, there’s nothing wrong with how you laid out the thesis.

The problems are caused by the realities of the world we inhabit. I’ll try to point out a few, and from there, proceed to some of the difficulties that then arise.

Protect the rights of everybody and respect the rule of law with basic human rights forming the foundation of the law.

Let’s start here. This seems to set out a fairly generic Lockean understanding of the reason government exists. Naturally, it is open to serious question.

Government exists not to protect rights, but rather to ensure the prosperity and power of people who make up government. The first government probably wasn’t any tribal assembly, but rather a master and a slave.

The difficulty arises because there are many actors withing government who pursue purely selfish, or tyrannical ends. So, from the start, we must confront a major disconnect between what we would like government to strive for, and what it actually does.

This includes property rights and therefore any interference into property rights is like the interference into any other human right (e.g. life,liberty)

In reality, there are many, many people (at least 5 to 10% in the US, much larger worldwide) who have no property. Telling them the law protects their property rights is as persuasive as telling the residents of a graveyard they have the right to life and liberty.

The key here is persuasion - you may be correct that property rights are like other civil liberties, but if a large segment of society does not accept the reasoning, their allegiance will not be forthcoming. Then, to compel it, the government must resort to the limitation of other civil liberties. This has been the basic relationship between governments and the poor since Old Testament days.

But let’s look a little deeper - is it, in fact true that property is “like” other civil rights?
Arguable, the right to property is different, because unlike other civil rights, property is what leads to the distinctions among people.

For example, if we are free not to testify against ourselves (5th Amendment), it is silly to say that Jones is more free not to testify himself than Doe. It is a kind of civil liberty that either Jones and Doe share equally, or not at all.

When it comes to property, however, if Jones has a million dollars, and Doe has ten, then the whole world knows that Jones is rich and Doe is poor. This reality affects almost everything that Jones and Doe will do during their mortal lives.

Also, there is a distinction between property rights and other civil liberties in that the definition of property is often linked to government action in a way that other civil liberties are not.

If Jones and Doe have the right to free exercise of religion (1st Amendment), they both agree that the government does not define what their religion is. The right, shall we say, pre-exists government.

However, if Jones has a corporation worth a million dollars, and Doe has land worth a million dollars, Jones is much more free to accumulate wealth through that property because the corportation enjoys perpetual legal existence while Doe’s land will be taxed every time a member of Doe’s family dies. But - Jones corporation only enjoys perpetual existence because the government conferred it. In other words, Jones gets to enjoy a benefit because the government tilted the playing field in his favor.

A good example of this distinction occurred recently in the Vatican’s paper on economic justice. The authors were taken to task for it, and one suspects that a major gripe some had with it was the paper’s endorsement of “Robin Hood” taxes, which exact a duty on each financial transaction - think stock trade. Obviously, such tax (even if only a penny a trade) would generate huge resources for government. Modern stock trades are a function of an incredibly complex set of industry practices and government regulations and rules. Is it licit to tax the trade? Is it any less licit to tax the cobbler who sells a pair of shoes? Logically, the cobbler relies far less on the government for the trade of shoemaking than the stock broker does, yet one is directly taxed on his transactions and the other is not.
One struggles to discern the equity there.

The problem is, if a government would act accordingly, its country would be what a lot of people would name wild-west capitalism because people would mostly be free to use their property as they want to. And such a country would probably be far more capitalistic than nearly any country today and the ones today are deemed to be far too capitalistic by many.

There are a couple of competing ideas in these sentences, and my humble suggestion is to pick a line and ride it.

There are two ways government could do this. It could “freeze” in the present, which would basically enshrine the present strengths and weaknesses of the system.

Or, it could return to some earlier point - but whch earlier point?

If it choose the latter, should it try to level the playing field on the way, or just let the economy find a new equilibrium?

Flesh these questions out, and the pro-capitalism argument, to me, starts looking a lot clearer and stronger.

Greed is of course a problem, but greed is a problem for any system just like other vices.

Each system carries with it a set of virtues and corresponding vices. Capitalism enables freedom, but fosters greed. Communism, by contrast, enabled a lot of social equality,
but fostered repression.

 

[Warrenton]

Up to about 200 years ago 95% of mankind lived in what we call absolut poverty, meaning hunger was a usual problem.

 

[Abu]

Warrenton #44
Capitalism enables freedom, but fosters greed.

Incorrect. The Catholic way: free enterprise, sound laws, and the morals that maketh the man. That’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to ensure competition. It is people who commit crimes.

#45, Quote:
Up to about 200 years ago 95% of mankind lived in what we call absolut poverty, meaning hunger was a usual problem.
Fortunately for humanity, the natural cycles of growth are more reliable than this.

There are no “natural cycles of growth” with regard to enterprise, but what Bl John Paul II affirms is the fundamental human “right to economic initiative.” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42).

It is only the development of the economic laws of cause and effect by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on faith and reason which enabled the enrichment of untold millions from the poverty before the enterprises that came with the “Industrial Revolution”. As with any new developments, unfortunately laws can be slow to follow, especially where reason and faith are confused or lacking.

Wealth can be distributed only after it is produced.

Unfortunately, with the rampant relativism and secularism in society and politics, the “protections” whether constraining investors, entrepreneurs, or employees will be imperfect, as with those nations that manipulate exchange rates to their advantage.

 

[carn]

carn;8556539:

Fortunately for humanity, the natural cycles of growth are more reliable than this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine#Famine_in_Europe

" Medieval Britain was afflicted by 95 famines,[95] and France suffered the effects of 75 or more in the same period."

Middle age lasted about 1000 years or a bit less. That means famine every 10-15 years. So 2 or more famines per lifetime (if one got old enough) was normal.

"The years around 1620 saw another period of famines sweep across Europe. These famines were generally less severe than the famines of twenty-five years earlier, but they were nonetheless quite serious in many areas. Perhaps the worst famine since 1600, the great famine in Finland in 1696, killed one-third of the population. [3]PDF (589 KiB)

Two massive famines struck France between 1693 and 1710, killing over two million people. In both cases the impact of harvest failure was exacerbated by wartime demands on the food supply.[98]

Illustration of starvation in northern Sweden, Finnish famine of 1866–1868As late as the 1690s, Scotland experienced famine which reduced the population of parts of Scotland by at least 15%.[99]

The famine of 1695–96 killed roughly 10% of Norway’s population.[100] At least nine severe harvest failures were recorded in the Scandinavian countries between 1740 and 1800, each resulting in a substantial rise of the death rate.[101]

The period of 1740–43 saw frigid winters and summer droughts which led to famine across Europe leading to a major spike in mortality. (cited in Davis, Late Victorian Holocausts, 281) The freezing winter of 1740-41, which led to widespread famine in northern Europe, may owe its origins to a volcanic eruption.[102]

The Great Famine, which lasted from 1770 until 1771, killed about one tenth of Czech lands’ population, or 250,000 inhabitants, and radicalized countrysides leading to peasant uprisings.[103]"

And europe in 18th century was rich compared to the rest of the world, otherwise it could not have conquered the rest of the world.

So famine is with us since the dawn of time. Only in some regions of the world since 100-200 years famine is absent.

To understand, the way the people are starving in some region of africa, this was the standard for large part of mankind for the entire history.

 

[carn]

and in the hypothetical case of legal limits on percentage of finite resources 1 person is allowed to control, there would obviously be a law, there would be others whom those resources could be given to, and there is a sufficient reason.

What would be the sufficient reason in the tree-island case for nobody owning 11 trees?

I cannot think of anything bad happening, if one owns only 9 trees and another 11. I cannot think of anything bad happening if one plants an 11th tree.

But i can think of a lot bad happening if some are unable to treat their trees correctly and others cannot buy them. Then the food output of the island drops, which could be bad.

With guns and cars one knows, that they can cause thousands of people to die per year and one can prove in many cases that the wrong handling caused the death. This justifies to forbid those people from using guns and cars, who are likely to have serious problems to handle guns or cars correctly. There is some ambiguity, how such limitations should be exactly and how to enforce it, but the need for regulation is obvious (even anarcholibertarians think that through paying for caused damages enforced by private law agencies good safety standards would be established, so they only think that the state is not capable of setting good standards, not that there is no need for standards)

you brought up Jobs, not me. i did not dance. You keep arguing that he’s not a criminal and I keep agreeing with you.

Strange, in my book, if some behavior is very harmful to others and the behavior is not essential for the actor, then it is not only harmful but also immoral and if its not criminal then only because a fitting law for whatever reasons does not exist.

I don’t know enough about his wealth, assets, or the resources he controlled (although I will say Apple has always struck me as having serious monopolistic tendencies) to explain in any specifics how his domination of those things hurt people.

So you cannot prove that Jobs actually harmed somebody. With what right could one take his property? Just on the notion that maybe him being so wealthy might harm some unknown somebody?

Lots is a vague term. My claim is that anyone in control of a large PORTION of the total means of production harms others. In other words, monopolizing opportunity is bad for society.

Can you provide evidence.
And mind that the claim is not that monopolizing can sometimes be harmful, because a “sometimes harmful” could not justify a all encompasing law forbidding something in general, it could just justify some anti-trust laws, which are applied to some cases, where the danger of harm is evident. For the “no one more than 10 trees” or whatever exact rule one could suggest for complicated societies today, one would have to show that monopolizing is always bad for society.

 

[RCconvert7]

To understand what is wrong with Capitalism and why it is incomparable with the Christian Life, read "Following Christ in a Consumer Society by Jesuit Fr. John Francis Kavanaugh.

 

[estesbob]

To understand what is wrong with Capitalism and why it is incomparable with the Christian Life, read "Following Christ in a Consumer Society by Jesuit Fr. John Francis Kavanaugh.

And what does he recommend we replace Captitalism with?

 

[Warrenton]

[To understand, the way the people are starving in some region of africa, this was the standard for large part of mankind for the entire history.

The claim was that most people were starving most of the time. The claim is false.

As you said, most people probably experienced dearth twice in their lives.
[/quote]

 

[Warrenton]

Incorrect. The Catholic way: free enterprise, sound laws, and the morals that maketh the man. That’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to ensure competition.

We have such laws because we need them. Capitalism fosters greed by providing the conditions where one can act on it, if one desires.

It is no different than observing that McDonalds restaurants foster gluttony, or taverns foster drunkeness.

This does not mean that McDonalds or taverns or capitalism are bad. But you don’t make capitalism better by ignoring its effects on human nature.

There are no “natural cycles of growth” with regard to enterprise,

I was talking about farming.

 

[TarkanAttila]

And what does he recommend we replace Captitalism with?

Distributism?

 

[estesbob]

Distributism?

Socialism by any other name is still socialism-whcih the Chruch condemns

 

[Abu]

Warrenton
Capitalism fosters greed by providing the conditions where one can act on it, if one desires….you don’t make capitalism better by ignoring its effects on human nature.

Incorrect.

Everything in life is dependant on fallen human nature which still needs to accept the natural law and exercise control. Where communism and socialism are both condemned outright in Catholic teaching, free enterprise is affirmed and lauded (post #42).

The sneer of “capitalism” came from the Karl Marx of Communism, and Bl 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” (#32, 34), as well as the “market economy or simple free economy.” (#42).

Thus free enterprise doesn’t “foster greed” – it was developed by the great Catholic Late Scholastics; greed comes from PEOPLE with a fallen human nature, a truth which Pope Benedict XVI has specifically identified so we know where greed comes from:
Pope Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “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).

 

[Warrenton]

free enterprise is affirmed and lauded (post #42).

Free enterprise covers a lot of territory. It is a somewhat different concept than capitalism.

The sneer of “capitalism” came from the Karl Marx of Communism

Who is sneering at capitalism?

Thus free enterprise doesn’t “foster greed” – it was developed by the great Catholic Late Scholastics;

I am familiar with the theory; I do not find it convincing. The ancient world was well acquainted with free enterprise. In fact, it was somewhat familiar with capitalism.

greed comes from PEOPLE with a fallen human nature,

Capitalism also comes from people with fallen human nature. In fact, most everything about society comes from people, all of whom have a fallen human nature.

All I am saying is that some societies foster different attributes, both for good and ill. Sparta fostered courage, but also cruelty. Would you agree with that?

Athens fostered intellectual curiousity, but also instability, Would you agree with that?

If you agree that societies can be distinguished, why can’t some societies foster high production? Why can’t some societies foster the desire to profit?

 

[John21652]

To understand what is wrong with Capitalism and why it is incomparable with the Christian Life, read "Following Christ in a Consumer Society by Jesuit Fr. John Francis Kavanaugh.

Capitalism is exactly compatable with the Christian/Catholic life.
If the agents of Capitalism would espouse the Virtues as outlined in the Catechism, it would work perfectly. If those Virtues are neglected, or abnigated in any way, replacing them with man made positive law merely unhinges and bastardises the capitalist system. Man made positive law can not replace adequately what should be the natural behaviours of men. Capitalism will naturally condemn those who fail to live and trade virtuousley.

 

[Abu]

Warrenton #56
Free enterprise covers a lot of territory. It is a somewhat different concept than capitalism.

A mere opinion.

Who is sneering at capitalism?

Karl Marx.

Quote from Abu:
Thus free enterprise doesn’t “foster greed” – it was developed by the great Catholic Late Scholastics;
I am familiar with the theory; I do not find it convincing.

What “theory”?

The ancient world was well acquainted with free enterprise.

Of course free enterprise was developed by Catholic monks from the ninth century and the principles enunciated by the great Catholic Late Scholastics. Thus, both Bl John Paul II are Pope Benedict XVI have affirmed free enterprise and called on people to act morally.

 

[Warrenton]

A mere opinion.

I shall demonstrate the truth of the opinion for you.

Jones has turnip. Doe has an egg. Jones trades Doe for the egg. This is free enterprise, assuming that Jones and Doe share more or less equal bargaining power.

It may or may not be capitalism.

Alles klar?

 

[Warrenton]

What “theory”?

This theory:

Of course free enterprise was developed by Catholic monks from the ninth century and the principles enunciated by the great Catholic Late Scholastics.

Further, you state:

Thus, both Bl John Paul II are Pope Benedict XVI have affirmed free enterprise and called on people to act morally.

Surely, the popes call on people to act morally for other reasons that what the schoolmen taught regarding economics?