Capitalism is Incompatible with Christianity

[phattonez]

NB: So is socialism.

There is no justification for an economic system that allows for unbridled avarice. We rightfully prosecute other sins, such as theft, murder, libel, and many others. Why would extreme avarice be any different? It's not good for the greedy man, nor is it good for society. There is no justification for it from Christ, the apostles, or anywhere. In fact, we see quite the opposite.

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have killed the righteous man; he does not resist you.

...

He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none and he who has food must do likewise. But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you. If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?

Given these moral precepts, why do we allow billionaires to have billions in dollars while the poor go without food and shelter? Why do we allow usury, when that is condemned repeatedly and aggressively throughout the Bible?

We do have a right to property, and we certainly have a right to invest as we see fit. That said, we do not have a right to hoard as much property as we like and neglect the needs of the poor. Such an idea is a corruption of Christianity and has no basis in good theology.

 

[phattonez]

Now there arose a great outcry of the people and of their wives against their Jewish brethren. 2 For there were those who said, “With our sons and our daughters, we are many; let us get grain, that we may eat and keep alive.” 3 There were also those who said, “We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards, and our houses to get grain because of the famine.” 4 And there were those who said, “We have borrowed money for the king’s tax upon our fields and our vineyards. 5 Now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children are as their children; yet we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have already been enslaved; but it is not in our power to help it, for other men have our fields and our vineyards.”

6 I was very angry when I heard their outcry and these words. 7 I took counsel with myself, and I brought charges against the nobles and the officials. I said to them, “You are exacting interest, each from his brother.” And I held a great assembly against them, 8 and said to them, “We, as far as we are able, have bought back our Jewish brethren who have been sold to the nations; but you even sell your brethren that they may be sold to us!” They were silent, and could not find a word to say. 9 So I said, “The thing that you are doing is not good. Ought you not to walk in the fear of our God to prevent the taunts of the nations our enemies? 10 Moreover I and my brethren and my servants are lending them money and grain. Let us leave off this interest. 11 Return to them this very day their fields, their vineyards, their olive orchards, and their houses, and the hundredth of money, grain, wine, and oil which you have been exacting of them.”

What is Nehemiah talking about? The cancellation of debt and the non-enforcement of usurious loans.

 

[Daisy]

Nothing good comes from sewing a new patch on an old garment or one pouring new wine into old wineskins...Matthew 9:16, 17...attempts to fix any earthly government is futile...only God via His Son, Jesus Christ, can do that...

“My kingdom is no part of this world.” John 18:36; Matthew 26:52, 53

Jesus Christ himself emphasized that his followers should not get involved in political affairs of this present world, stating to them...

“You are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” John 15:19

 

[phattonez]

Nothing good comes from sewing a new patch on an old garment or one pouring new wine into old wineskins...Matthew 9:16, 17...attempts to fix any earthly government is futile...only God via His Son, Jesus Christ, can do that...

“My kingdom is no part of this world.” John 18:36; Matthew 26:52, 53

Jesus Christ himself emphasized that his followers should not get involved in political affairs of this present world, stating to them...

“You are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” John 15:19

I'm not sure this means we should be uninvolved with politics. It still matters to justice. We just must keep in mind that this place is temporary.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[Felis Leo]

NB: So is socialism.

There is no justification for an economic system that allows for unbridled avarice. We rightfully prosecute other sins, such as theft, murder, libel, and many others. Why would extreme avarice be any different? It's not good for the greedy man, nor is it good for society. There is no justification for it from Christ, the apostles, or anywhere. In fact, we see quite the opposite.



Given these moral precepts, why do we allow billionaires to have billions in dollars while the poor go without food and shelter? Why do we allow usury, when that is condemned repeatedly and aggressively throughout the Bible?

We do have a right to property, and we certainly have a right to invest as we see fit. That said, we do not have a right to hoard as much property as we like and neglect the needs of the poor. Such an idea is a corruption of Christianity and has no basis in good theology.

In your opinion, what materialistic philosophy regarding political economy would be compatible with Christianity, phattonez?

 

[phattonez]

In your opinion, what materialistic philosophy regarding political economy would be compatible with Christianity, phattonez?

Distributism.

 

[Ahlevah]

Distributism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this system depend on a broad distribution of the means of production? How would that work in a modern society where a large portion of the wealth is derived from intellectual property? For example, Taylor Swift earns hundreds of millions of dollars a year singing live at concerts. How would you redistribute her?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Given these moral precepts, why do we allow billionaires to have billions in dollars while the poor go without food and shelter?

Because billionaires, for the most part, contribute massively to the improvement of our society by developing industries that improve our lives and employ millions of people (who might otherwise be poor). The poor contribute practically nothing, except perhaps labor that robots will be better at doing within a decade.

Why do we allow usury, when that is condemned repeatedly and aggressively throughout the Bible?

1. We don't allow usury.

2. We don't live in a theocracy.

Such an idea is a corruption of Christianity and has no basis in good theology.

So what? Theology is useless.

 

[Logicman]

Although giving and charity are commanded by the Lord, nowhere in the Bible does it say that giving must first be filtered through a bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy. The Bible says that a man shall reap what he sows, but it doesn’t say we should live off of what other people sow. What’s more, Scripture teaches that if a man does not work, he shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Scripture also commands us not to covet what belongs to our neighbor:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17

Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left wing economic scheme centered in greed for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and initiative and earning it one’s self.

 

[yankintx]

NB: So is socialism.

There is no justification for an economic system that allows for unbridled avarice. We rightfully prosecute other sins, such as theft, murder, libel, and many others. Why would extreme avarice be any different? It's not good for the greedy man, nor is it good for society. There is no justification for it from Christ, the apostles, or anywhere. In fact, we see quite the opposite.



Given these moral precepts, why do we allow billionaires to have billions in dollars while the poor go without food and shelter? Why do we allow usury, when that is condemned repeatedly and aggressively throughout the Bible?

We do have a right to property, and we certainly have a right to invest as we see fit. That said, we do not have a right to hoard as much property as we like and neglect the needs of the poor. Such an idea is a corruption of Christianity and has no basis in good theology.

You raise some valid points. What is Christian about wanting to take away poor folks healthcare. How or why does political leanings trump Christian teachings. If Christ was a member of Congress would he vote to take folks healthcare away? A Christian would know the answer to that one.

 

[phattonez]

Although giving and charity are commanded by the Lord, nowhere in the Bible does it say that giving must first be filtered through a bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy. The Bible says that a man shall reap what he sows, but it doesn’t say we should live off of what other people sow. What’s more, Scripture teaches that if a man does not work, he shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Scripture also commands us not to covet what belongs to our neighbor:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17

Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left wing economic scheme centered in greed for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and initiative and earning it one’s self.

Those are great arguments to bring against socialists, but the Church is strongly against socialism. Therefore, what is your point? It's not as if the only choices are capitalism or socialism.

 

[zyzygy]

Those are great arguments to bring against socialists, but the Church is strongly against socialism. Therefore, what is your point? It's not as if the only choices are capitalism or socialism.

The Church? Which church and can you prove that it is against socialism? Christ was a socialist.

 

[Ahlevah]

You raise some valid points. What is Christian about wanting to take away poor folks healthcare. How or why does political leanings trump Christian teachings. If Christ was a member of Congress would he vote to take folks healthcare away? A Christian would know the answer to that one.

A Christian's relationship with God is, or should be, a personal one. In other words, it's a matter of conscience for him to work on how he conducts his life, not to dictate to others how they should conduct theirs. He can help the poor and work to improve the conditions of society and his neighbors if he wants. That's why God gave man free will. He can do good, or he can do evil. True freedom requires nothing less. A Christian isn't commanded to have government put a collective gun to the heads of billionaires demanding that they fork over their wealth to fund Obamacare.

 

[phattonez]

A Christian's relationship with God is, or should be, a personal one. In other words, it's a matter of conscience for him to work on how he conducts his life, not to dictate to others how they should conduct theirs.

"Am I my brother's keeper"? The answer is undoubtedly yes, based on the story of Cain and Abel. This is also why Jesus praised the Samaritan and condemned the scribe and Pharisee.

He can help the poor and work to improve the conditions of society and his neighbors if he wants. That's why God gave man free will. He can do good, or he can do evil. True freedom requires nothing less. A Christian isn't commanded to have government put a collective gun to the heads of billionaires demanding that they fork over their wealth to fund Obamacare.

There's no can about it. He MUST.

 

[AmNat]

NB: So is socialism.

There is no justification for an economic system that allows for unbridled avarice. We rightfully prosecute other sins, such as theft, murder, libel, and many others. Why would extreme avarice be any different? It's not good for the greedy man, nor is it good for society. There is no justification for it from Christ, the apostles, or anywhere. In fact, we see quite the opposite.



Given these moral precepts, why do we allow billionaires to have billions in dollars while the poor go without food and shelter? Why do we allow usury, when that is condemned repeatedly and aggressively throughout the Bible?

We do have a right to property, and we certainly have a right to invest as we see fit. That said, we do not have a right to hoard as much property as we like and neglect the needs of the poor. Such an idea is a corruption of Christianity and has no basis in good theology.

I used to be a hard core distributist, but I don't think such a system can work in reality. Elites will *always* monopolize the primary means of production. The only way an industry can be practiced on distributist lines is if it's a small part of the economy (e.g. the trades in medieval times).

I do agree that usury should be strictly prohibited, and the economy regulated in such a way that it benefits the people. But it's not accurate to describe billionaires as hoarding. I don't know if there's anyone with e.g. a billion dollars in non-productive assets.

 

[phattonez]

I used to be a hard core distributist, but I don't think such a system can work in reality. Elites will *always* monopolize the primary means of production. The only way an industry can be practiced on distributist lines is if it's a small part of the economy (e.g. the trades in medieval times).

I do agree that usury should be strictly prohibited, and the economy regulated in such a way that it benefits the people. But it's not accurate to describe billionaires as hoarding. I don't know if there's anyone with e.g. a billion dollars in non-productive assets.

Absolutely, but you can either do nothing about that (capitalism), or accept it and regulate it all (socialism), or actively try to distribute it as widely as possible to prevent it (distributism). The last seems like the best approach to me.

And absolutely billionaires are hoarding. Yes, they're invested in productive assets, but using money to make more money only makes them wealthier. It doesn't make society better off.

 

[AmNat]

Absolutely, but you can either do nothing about that (capitalism), or accept it and regulate it all (socialism), or actively try to distribute it as widely as possible to prevent it (distributism). The last seems like the best approach to me.

You can try, but I don't see any realistic way of succeeding. The government will always be run by elites (by definition), and they won't stand for a system that prevents them from dominating the economy. If you're aware of any historical counter-example, I'd like to know.

It's also not clear that a system where the necessities of life are produced non-locally, can function without centralization.

And absolutely billionaires are hoarding. Yes, they're invested in productive assets, but using money to make more money only makes them wealthier. It doesn't make society better off.

Tech companies aside, productive investments create jobs. They should be incentivized to hire American and pay better, but they aren't the only ones benefiting from their money.

 

[phattonez]

You can try, but I don't see any realistic way of succeeding. The government will always be run by elites (by definition), and they won't stand for a system that prevents them from dominating the economy. If you're aware of any historical counter-example, I'd like to know.

England before the establishment of the Bank of England. There are always going to be elites, but their power can be limited.

It's also not clear that a system where the necessities of life are produced non-locally, can function without centralization.

We should adapt to produce more things locally. The Amish are a notable example, and they're doing quite well.

Tech companies aside, productive investments create jobs. They should be incentivized to hire American and pay better, but they aren't the only ones benefiting from their money.

Can you pick a better example than tech companies? Because Americans certainly aren't benefiting from those jobs.

 

[AmNat]

England before the establishment of the Bank of England. There are always going to be elites, but their power can be limited.

At the time, farming made up the majority of the economy. And most farmland was owned by the aristocracy.

The power of elites can never be limited, because anyone who could limit elite power would themselves be an elite. The elites can use their power for good, but they can't surrender it.

We should adapt to produce more things locally. The Amish are a notable example, and they're doing quite well.

Some land is better for farming specific crops, or just better for farming in general. Producing everything locally requires greater investments of time and manpower.

A lot of goods are also much cheaper to make at a centralized location. For example, cars would be ridiculously expensive if every town had to have a factory to produce them.

Can you pick a better example than tech companies? Because Americans certainly aren't benefiting from those jobs.

I think you misunderstood what i said. In general, productive investments create jobs. Tech companies are an exception.

 

[phattonez]

At the time, farming made up the majority of the economy. And most farmland was owned by the aristocracy.

The power of elites can never be limited, because anyone who could limit elite power would themselves be an elite. The elites can use their power for good, but they can't surrender it.

There are certainly different degrees of power of the elite. And where today do most of the elites get their power? It's usury.

Some land is better for farming specific crops, or just better for farming in general. Producing everything locally requires greater investments of time and manpower.

A lot of goods are also much cheaper to make at a centralized location. For example, cars would be ridiculously expensive if every town had to have a factory to produce them.

Yes of course that's true, but at the same time if we were to break up the big 3 and instead have the big 10, or the big 20, auto companies would pay their employees better while still enjoying the benefits of economies of scale. It's all about subsidiarity: keep everything as local AS POSSIBLE.

I think you misunderstood what i said. In general, productive investments create jobs. Tech companies are an exception.

And I'm fine with productive investment (with shared risk, no usury!), but productive investment doesn't require Jeff Bezos have $160 billion.

 

[Ahlevah]

"Am I my brother's keeper"? The answer is undoubtedly yes, based on the story of Cain and Abel. This is also why Jesus praised the Samaritan and condemned the scribe and Pharisee.

Notice Cain didn't say, "Is government my brother's keeper?" The operative word here is "I."

There's no can about it. He MUST.

Okay, he must, but must what? Force others to do his bidding in order to secure his place in Paradise? Get government to do it? We have a thing in this country called separation of church and state. If the citizens of this society think it's a great idea to spread capital around because it's beneficial to the greater good, then they can do that. But there isn't a Christian imperative that forces anyone to to do anything. Morally, doing good must come from a person's free will or it's all but worthless. I mean, if people only perform good deeds because they're forced to or because they expect a reward, are THEY good? Not necessarily.

 

[phattonez]

Notice Cain didn't say, "Is government my brother's keeper?" The operative word here is "I."

I'm not saying that government must distribute all charity, but it certainly should act against the opposite, which is avarice.

Okay, he must, but must what? Force others to do his bidding in order to secure his place in Paradise? Get government to do it? We have a thing in this country called separation of church and state. If the citizens of this society think it's a great idea to spread capital around because it's beneficial to the greater good, then they can do that. But there isn't a Christian imperative that forces anyone to to do anything. Morally, doing good must come from a person's free will or it's all but worthless. I mean, if people only perform good deeds because they're forced to or because they expect a reward, are THEY good? Not necessarily.

He must give away his excess wealth to help the poor. Why shouldn't the government prevent excess wealth accumulation? Why should the government allow Bezos to have $160 billion?

 

[Omega Man]

Why should the government allow Bezos to have $160 billion?

Did you just ask why the government "allows" somebody to keep what they themselves earned? Or is this a tax-deferment question?


OM

 

[phattonez]

Did you just ask why the government "allows" somebody to keep what they themselves earned? Or is this a tax-deferment question?


OM

I'm asking why someone who is able to satisfy his needs should be able to keep anything beyond that yes. I realize that there cannot be a strict definition of what goes beyond satisfying needs, but this doesn't make the principle meaningless. Where is the justification for such avarice in Christianity?

 

[Ahlevah]

I used to be a hard core distributist, but I don't think such a system can work in reality. Elites will *always* monopolize the primary means of production. The only way an industry can be practiced on distributist lines is if it's a small part of the economy (e.g. the trades in medieval times).

Was Bill Gates an "elite" when he founded Microsoft with Paul Allen? Were Steve Jobs and Woz elites when they assembled their first computers in a garage in Los Altos, California? How about Sergey Brin and Larry Page when they founded Google? Collectively, these companies have a market cap of of almost $3 trillion and their owners became billionaires, but most of that value was derived not from what we think of as traditional capital, but from intellectual property. Microsoft, for example, has a tangible book value of $5.86 per share. So I don't think the distributionist model considered that.

I also don't think anyone can control anything for long. Does anyone remember Eckert–Mauchly Computer Corporation? Sperry did its best with it, but IBM owned the mainframe computer business through the 1960s into the '70s. Then came DEC and the minicomputer. In the 1980s, Sun Microsystems developed a thing called a workstation. So much for the minicomputer. Workstations were cheaper. In the 1990s, companies found that they could derive even greater savings by using PCs connected to central servers. At the same time they were discovering the power of the Internet. Now we hear a lot about "the Cloud," with companies ditching their server and mainframe networks in favor of services provided by third parties, such as Salesforce, Oracle Cloud, and Amazon Web Services. IBM is still here, but it's struggling to convert from legacy hardware and services firm to one based almost exclusively on intellectual property and the Cloud. And so it goes.

The point is our economy is dynamic and increasingly based less on the capital you control than a good or better idea.