Is Capitalism Evil?
I recently received an email from a friend in which he cited the evils of capitalism 5 times in the context a message that really had nothing to do with making that point at all. If gave me pause to wonder about it all.
A point is made, as phrased by one Eberhard Arnold (no idea), that as Christians we are obliged to oppose capitalism. Sadly I cannot press Mr. Arnold for details: Is he calling for a revolution? And a change into what? Socialism? Oh how I despise not being able to dialogue with those who are quoted - or in this case, those that quote.
I really do not think that capitalism is inherently evil...and for that matter neither is socialism, or communism, or a monarchy. I rather like capitalism, because (and I admit here that I am not an economist) it is a system founded upon freedom and people bring to its table whatever they happen to have in their hearts...as it so happens this is usually passions and lusts - selfishness. But, do we really want government to force us into being less passion ridden, and less selfish? I believe we have tried such things on a societal scale before with little success in fidning Utopia - you've seen the old proverb: Wherever you go, there you are?
In the end, I don't really think God cares much about how we organize our governments and associated economics, but rather very much cares about how we ARE in the context of those systems. Recall THIS post, which I thought deserved more attention than it got - if I do say so myself.
Jesus was not a revolutionary in the political sense AT ALL. Those stupid protraits of Jesus mixed up to look like Che Gueverra are an absolute travesty...a grave theological error - which is exactly what the related "liberation theology" has been rightly called by the Roman Catholic Pope.
But I do think some people can get caught up in thinking capitalism is somehow endorsed or ordained by God. The truth of the matter is, we can pursue holiness amidst ANY form of governmental of economic system. Capitalism is as corrupt as you and I are...and I do not think we are going to fix the REAL problem by dumping capitalism.
I suspect Jesus - as He so often did in the Gospels, would rather direct us inwardly than at throwing off the Roman yoke.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Popular Posts
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
That quote nailed it for me. Right on!
Oh, and no, I don't think capitalism is inherently evil. But neither do I think that God doesn't care about our forms of government. ISTM, and I may be way off base here, that God actually blessed (i.e., anointed) only monarchs. So, take that thought to its logical conclusion... /ducks and runs
I'm curious what you're taking the word "blessed" to mean as it regards to God blessing or annointing Monarchies. Keep in mind, in the text it says that God gave the people what they wanted, but it was not what he wanted. Was he blessing the actual office of King? Was he blessing the person? Was he bestowing authority on the office, so the Isrealites would continue to obey?
What was he actually doing?
Not to mention...were there really any democracies for him to bless back then? I'm making no assumptions/arguments/beliefs...just acking the question.
Chance
I am taking a course in Marxism right now, and reading the Communist Manifesto is fascinating. Marx recognized the highly exploitive nature of capitalism and laissez-faire economics. "Do as you will". That says it all, doesn't it? I don't agree with it. But then, I'm Canadian, and Socialist (the two, btw, are not necessarily synonymous - cf: Alberta!), and I believe in a strong social safety net. I also strongly believe that the merits and greatness of a country may be judged by how it treats its weakest members, (in this aspect, the U.S. fails miserably).
God cannot be politicized, however, I think it is our duty to speak out against injustice and oppression when and where you find it, and against any government that violates basic human rights, whether or not you are Republican, Democrat, Liberal, or Conservative.
The governments God blesses vary, don't they? The Lord tries to argue the Israelites out of monarchy and stay with Judges. The track record of kings of Israel & Judah are not great, including David.
There is an interview I've read with St. Elizabeth the martyr she gave some time during the revolution. She, a member of the Russian royal family was full of praise for the American way of life, and hoped Russia could have that some day. This a rejection of monarchy from *within* monarchy itself. Among other great things, our government has outlawed slavery. And it wasn't very long ago that anyone alive was liable to be a slave. The Muslims still have slaves when they can get away with it. Freedom is a great thing, and boy is it ever *new* on the scene. I don't know why we're so blessed with it, but I hope we continue to have it.
Does anyone know someone who honestly thinks an alternative is preferable? -- Bob K.
No, Marx did not recognize the exploitative nature of capitalism. He simply made it up, and then all his students, mostly in Russia, actually applied the principle "Do as you will" for 70 years. Under "do as you will," Lenin, and later Stalin, dispensed with tens of millions of innocent people, and then provoked WWII with an alliance with Hitler. "Do as you will" indeed says it all, but not about us, rather about Marxism, in *every* country it gets tried.
Remember Marxism is distinct from Socialism in that Marxism proposes a violent overthrow of the government as the only realistic solution to the problem of capitalism, and heaps withering scorn on Socialists, who believe that the ideal economic system can be arrived at through parliamentary (peaceful) means.
In every country it's been tried, Communism turns into a tyranny, because the violent struggle part never comes to an end. Marx saw the Government of the Workers specifically as a temporary institution to make war on the owning classes. The problem is that once all the rich (and productive) members of society are punished, dispossessed, cut down to size (or murdered), the tyranny just sticks around. In the Soviet Union, for example, there were no rich peasants to dispossess, so they just made it up, inventing the great "struggle against the kulaks", and other propaganda drives, all the way to WWII. Consider Mao's Great Leap and so on. How could anyone dare to compare these societies with liberal capitalism in terms of the amount of human misery generated? The sheer ugliness of human exploitation makes the industrial age sweat shops look like rose gardens.
Someone said that we Americans don't care for the poor. A disgusting lie. Our poor live much better than the urban middle class in the Soviet Union, or for example, Cuba. This country shells out billions of dollars on the poor, disabled, elderly, and widowed in every state of the union (and to many parts of the world), through an amazing complex of costly social insurance systems. And this doesn't even take into consideration the enormous private charities that exist here. Some of us want to decrease that amount, or simplify it, others want to increase it. But to say we don't care for them is preposterous. Finally, is there any other country where a struggle against abortion is even being mounted? Certainly not in the old Soviet Union, where women reportedly had an average of 10 abortions per person. How's that for "do as you will."?
Capitalism is like the bathroom toilet. It's not meant to be pretty, but it's necessary, and if it's not allowed to function, it becomes a misery.
Communism: What's yours is mine. The Church: What's mine is yours.
This did not disappear after the Book of Acts..AND it was not a failed attempt! The fact that the Church "held all things in common" was not legislated by the heirarchy, it was put into the hearts of each member by the Holy Spirit. Some cults actually requre members to hand over their property, and even their paychecks (!) to the leaders....this is NOT what the Book of Acts describes.
Big difference between communism and communalism, huh?
Any system of government that attempts to even the playing field using law is bound to eventually resort to coercive measures to do so, and any and all coercive governments will eventually fall to an uprising, for we were made for freedom.
The Church of Christ does not and will not fall, because we are not under law, but under grace. I agree with James...making visible the Kingdom of God on earth has more to do with inward reform that abides in the grace and love of the Triune God, leading to communities of love.
--Deacon Kevin
He could have advocating for Palestinian Liberation. (hehehe)
Or He could have gone with the "powers that be" and perhaps advocated a return to the Roman Republic, which really lost its power less than a hundred years before. Or better yet, he could have advocated for the empowerment of the plebs - giving them even more of a say in the Roman Senate.
Alas...He offers nothing for us. He just seems to go about radically changing the hearts and minds of individual people - challenging their failures and misgivings rather than what were no doubt gross systematic injustices throughout the empire.
Isn't that essentially what DP was saying about the abortion march? He didn't organize rallies and march on Rome. He changed people's hearts.
Chance
Here's my rationale: Jesus could not vote. Would the gospel have looked differently if He (or the early Church for that matter) could have sought political change on issues that were clearly contrary to the teaching of Christ and His Church?
I don't know. Democracy as we have it today was utterly unknown to Church throughout the VAST majority of its existance.
Taking the argument to its logical conclusion (Jesus - and His followers - change hearts, not policies) would seem to mean that we also really ought not to concern ourselves with voting.
It seems to me that we ought to work within the context of our cultural, economic, and governmental context we live in. As it is, we are lucky enough to vocally express the conscience our culture and society OUGHT to have and I think we are obliged to do it. Furthermore I believe we can do it and still work at changing our own hearts and the hearts of those with whom we have contact.
Democracy and freedom are new to us...perhaps even a burden...under a monarchy we neddn't concern ourselves with whether or not to toss our collective Christian voice into the cultural and political melting pot.
I recall the Saint Telemachus who is said to have hopped into the gladiatorial ring and publically call for an end to the bloody spectacle...he was slain there and according to tradition the gladitorial combats ended from that day foward. I suppose he could have just started witnessing to gladiators....but in today's day and age who could start a referrendum.
:)
I think to equate organizing rallies and the like to Jesus time doesn't work. Not that I'm disagreeing w/ your point in general, but I'm just being cautious.
Christ certainly could have made his voice heard, and in fact, many of the Jews expected him to do just that. They expected a King. I suspect if he'd decided to go that route, practically the whole nation of Israel would have followed him.
He could have been a VERY powerful voice for change, and I'd wager (as long as we're all making OUTLANDISH speculations about what Jesus would have done) he could have overthrown the Roman yoke, and expanded the borders of Israel beyond David's time.
How's that for making your voice heard and standing up for what you believe. As you note, there was no voting in his day, so to compare what he did or didn't do to today's society is a little silly on both our parts. But if we're speculating, I think political marching in mass is closer to starting a revolution in his day (note the frequency of riots in these things today) than walking into the ballot booth.
You asked "...Would the gospel have looked differently if He (or the early Church for that matter) could have sought political change on issues that were clearly contrary to the teaching of Christ and His Church?..."
I think that's the beauty of the Gospel...it never changes. How we pursue following it...that's a whole other barrel of monkeys. But it seems to me His goal wasn't to "change the politican and social spheres" of the world, but rather to change the men and women into his own Body the Church, and then send the Holy Spirit to guide that Church (and the individuals in it) into how to do it all.
Chance
We cannot say political activism is wrong because Jesus never participated in political activism. The Romans did not take kindly to any notion of civil unrest. They had a way of dealing very harshly with "rallies" Very likely they were simply illegal - no matter how peaceful.
Once the Jews did rise up around 70AD...well...things didn't pan out very well for them.
"I think political marching in mass is closer to starting a revolution in his day (note the frequency of riots in these things today) than walking into the ballot booth."
I'm not exactly sure I know what you mean by this. Riots, yes, but I think the vast majority of marches/rallies (here in America) are sufficiently peaceful. (Note I specify America...it seems Danish cartoons have got the Muslim world up in arms). And more than that...rallies/marches/ and gathering I believe are a venerable and protected part of our American heritage.
I agree, we have a difficult time in knowing or predicting how Jesus' ministry MIGHT have been different in the context of a more free society. I suspect we have a bit more freedom in extrapolating how the Church interacts with a government - particularly a free one.
And making inferences based on the fact that Jesus wasn't able to vote gets even murkier, again either way. So setting that aside, I'm failing to understand how you harmonize your thoughts on abortion marching and capitalism. Both are basically political issues that Christians have to grapple with, and yet one one you say "Yes...let's march" and on the other you say "Jesus was more concerned w/ the individual, and so should we be".
So I guess my question is twofold. How do you harmonize these, and how do you decide when to do what?
When is it a one on one issue, and when is it a public march on the streets issue, again keeping in mind that both of the previous issues are in fact political issues in this country, in our context.
Chance
what Marx was is irrelevant.
He did recognize the inherent (YES! inherent) cracks in Capitalism
Necessary, you say?
don't get me started.
"Nickle and Dimed", the 'working poor'.
Inasmuch as Russia may be a perfect example of failed communism,
America is also an example of failed capitalism.
And, once again, it is our individual (INDIVIDUAL) responsibility to speak out against injustice and oppression.
To protect the widows and orphans.
To love.
Well unless you plan to stop voting then you - like me - are going to have to come to some sort of harmony, no?
Protesting and marching, I believe are a part of the political process in our democracy - that is why it is protected by our founding documents...clearly those who wrote the documents believed it was an important part of what our brand of Democracy is all about.
As we both note, Jesus didn't seem to address political issues per se, I think my primary complaint with liberation theology and such is - as I wrote - that they miss the PRIMARY message of Jesus and replace it with a political one. See my post on that movie.
But here in our democracy, when we see something like the slaughter of innocents and we have the right to speak out about it...well...why not?