Capitalism is anti-Christian

RGacky3 said:

.. No I heard it before ... Its just wrong ...

Click to expand...

THE PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL-SOCIALIST (NAZI) GERMAN WORKERS’ PARTY

7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens.

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.

11. We Therefore Demand the abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort. Breaking the Servitude of Interest.

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the Nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the Nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard of religion or race.

19. In order to make higher education—and thereby entry into leading positions—available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system.

25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central autority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states....

Click to expand...

Say whatever else you like about them, the Nazis were not into small government, free markets, individual autonomy, or anything else that is a hallmark of capitalism.

Socialist corporatist is a contradiction in terms, also they had a War economy.

Click to expand...

No, it was the famous "third way". Liberalism (at the time) stood for individual autonomy, free trade, and small central governments. In the crises of the inter-war period, it seemed ill-suited for modern life. However, Socialism (at the time) was an internationalist creed, which argued that German and Russian members of the proletariat had more in common with each other than with their fellow countrymen. Those who felt strong attachment to their nation rejected it.

National Socialism was the Third Way, the first to claim that they weren't sticking to hidebound ideology, but simply "following what works". Socialism was achievable, but within a National context ("National" "Socialism"), and full socialism (which threatened the middle class) wasn't necessary, but large-scale nationalization followed by the drafting of large economic entities for the purposes of the "common good" and the creation of a middle class entitlement state was simply "modern" and "progressive".

Didn't have anything to do with what I said.

Click to expand...

Actually it does. You were attempting to imply that this made him somehow pro-capitalism. In reality, Hitler went after the unions for the same reason that Stalin and Mao did - they were an alternative potential base of public power; and he used the exact same argument that they did - that unions had already become the government, and so their independent existence was no longer required.

Sure, That doesn't change my argument AT ALL, the alternative to capitalism isn't tax and welfare ... tax and welfare is part of capitalism, the alternative is havn't people have a say over the economic things that effect them

Click to expand...

You seem to be confused here.

In a free market (capitalism) people have a say over the economic things that effect them.

In a non free market (socialism) government has the say over economic things that effect them.

In a mixed government (corporatism) it's a struggle whether or not people or the government has the say over particular economic things that effect them.


In Christianity, an explicit line is drawn between the functions of the body of believers (functions which include taking care of the poor) and the functions of the government. The New Testament does not lay out a political program for the simple enough reason that it is not a political book - it is bigger than that.

No one here argued for taxes

Click to expand...

good luck having a welfare state without them.

Nor am I arguing for forced charity, I'm arguing for an economy that runs for the public good rather than profit, and where people have a say over what effects them.

Click to expand...

Ah. So you are a capitalist, then.

cpwill said:

THE PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL-SOCIALIST (NAZI) GERMAN WORKERS’ PARTY



Say whatever else you like about them, the Nazis were not into small government, free markets, individual autonomy, or anything else that is a hallmark of capitalism.

Click to expand...

But they didn't ENACT THOSE POLICIES ... THat's what I'm saying.

No, it was the famous "third way". Liberalism (at the time) stood for individual autonomy, free trade, and small central governments. In the crises of the inter-war period, it seemed ill-suited for modern life. However, Socialism (at the time) was an internationalist creed, which argued that German and Russian members of the proletariat had more in common with each other than with their fellow countrymen. Those who felt strong attachment to their nation rejected it.

National Socialism was the Third Way, the first to claim that they weren't sticking to hidebound ideology, but simply "following what works". Socialism was achievable, but within a National context ("National" "Socialism"), and full socialism (which threatened the middle class) wasn't necessary, but large-scale nationalization followed by the drafting of large economic entities for the purposes of the "common good" and the creation of a middle class entitlement state was simply "modern" and "progressive".

Click to expand...

I'm looking at the policies that Nazi's actually enacted ... corporatism is not socialism.

Actually it does. You were attempting to imply that this made him somehow pro-capitalism. In reality, Hitler went after the unions for the same reason that Stalin and Mao did - they were an alternative potential base of public power; and he used the exact same argument that they did - that unions had already become the government, and so their independent existence was no longer required.

Click to expand...

I didn't claim he was pro-capitalism ... I claimed he was anti-socialistm

You seem to be confused here.

In a free market (capitalism) people have a say over the economic things that effect them.

In a non free market (socialism) government has the say over economic things that effect them.

In a mixed government (corporatism) it's a struggle whether or not people or the government has the say over particular economic things that effect them.

Click to expand...

Capitailsm isn't defined as the free market, free markets existed all over the place before Capitalism, capitalism is the capitalist mode of production, with private control of capital and the for profit system. In capitalism the wealthy and owners of capital have a sya over the things that effect everyone ... your say is dependant on your money.

In Socialism, there are different ways, you have a say through you're vote, or through you're cooperative, or in different ways.

Mixed government isn't corporatism, you have social democracy, where you have public industry which is accountable to the electorate and private which is not.

Corporatism is where the governmetn and corporations work together.

I don't seam to be confused, you seam to not know what you're talking about, what socialism is, what corporatism is, and frankly what capitalism is.

In Christianity, an explicit line is drawn between the functions of the body of believers (functions which include taking care of the poor) and the functions of the government. The New Testament does not lay out a political program for the simple enough reason that it is not a political book - it is bigger than that.

good luck having a welfare state without them.


Ah. So you are a capitalist, then.

Click to expand...

You're right, however, the congregation, the early church WAS a kind of government, in the sense that it was an organizing body, and it worked in a socialist function, and if you're going to use you're christian principles on hwo society should be run, you would oppose a system which mandates greed and exploitation and marginalization and plutocracy ... Its plain and simple.

What you're saying is support a clearly un christian system, but do christian things individually, i.e. collectively be unchristian, but individually be a christian, even though christianity is a social religion.

Also Capitalism is a state institution (private property and so on), socialism changes that institution, so we don't need the strawman of "more or less government," which isn't being argued here.

Nor the strawman of Statism, or totalitarianism which has nothing to do with classical socialism.

Btw All you've argued against is Leninism (state-capitalism) and tax and welfare state, a strawman (there are plenty of alternatives to capitalism)

You havn't addressed the origional actual points, of Capitalism and christianity being incompatible.

RGacky3 said:

I agree. Although even with regulated Capitalism, the fundementals are there. So its like arguing for a benevolent slave system or a benevolent dictatorship.

Click to expand...

I hear you. I would hope that eventually advanced economies will evolve beyond capitalism, but we're not in sight of that yet and the course that Marx predicted would occur never developed. Basically the proletariat was outsourced to the third world, while advanced capitalist countries become more bourgeois than ever. So at this point, it's hard to see how advanced capitalism will evolve beyond itself (though perhaps the voluntary value of the internet is model that will arise, like Wikipedia, and somehow flip over to actual goods, rather than just voluntary services)

head of joaquin said:

I hear you. I would hope that eventually advanced economies will evolve beyond capitalism, but we're not in sight of that yet and the course that Marx predicted would occur never developed. Basically the proletariat was outsourced to the third world, while advanced capitalist countries become more bourgeois than ever. So at this point, it's hard to see how advanced capitalism will evolve beyond itself (though perhaps the voluntary value of the internet is model that will arise, like Wikipedia, and somehow flip over to actual goods, rather than just voluntary services)

Click to expand...

Capitalism will move to where the working people are poorly organized and come cheap, but will always try to exploit them to the point where they have to fight. The total control of the state by the capitalist class means that it will grow stronger and stronger, but its inherent tendency to hoover up all the money will antagonise its armed forces and police (it's already happening here in the UK) just at the time when they are needed to fight for foreign markets and to destroy working people's rights, will make it equally vulnerable everywhere, so I wouldn't give capitalism as good a chance as you do. The naive attitudes of Americans won't survive the fall in real wages either.

Penderyn said:

Capitalism will move to where the working people are poorly organized and come cheap, but will always try to exploit them to the point where they have to fight. The total control of the state by the capitalist class means that it will grow stronger and stronger, but its inherent tendency to hoover up all the money will antagonise its armed forces and police (it's already happening here in the UK) just at the time when they are needed to fight for foreign markets and to destroy working people's rights, will make it equally vulnerable everywhere, so I wouldn't give capitalism as good a chance as you do. The naive attitudes of Americans won't survive the fall in real wages either.

Click to expand...

I see your point. It's just that we seem far away from a tipping point in the US, where worker rights are almost a verboten topic in our political discourse, as well as polite conversation. It's uncanny.

By the way, my scottish friends use the verb "hoover up" also. Love it.

Interestingly, Marx predicted the globalization of captial before anybody, but he thought it would result in lower and lower profit margins for companies, due to intense competition, which would make them unsustainable. I don't think he got that one just right.

RGacky3 said:

I'm arguing for an economy that runs for the public good rather than profit, and where people have a say over what effects them.

Click to expand...

"runs for the public good" who will and how is the "public good" to be defined???

head of joaquin said:

I see your point. It's just that we seem far away from a tipping point in the US, where worker rights are almost a verboten topic in our political discourse, as well as polite conversation. It's uncanny.

By the way, my scottish friends use the verb "hoover up" also. Love it.

Interestingly, Marx predicted the globalization of captial before anybody, but he thought it would result in lower and lower profit margins for companies, due to intense competition, which would make them unsustainable. I don't think he got that one just right.

Click to expand...

Just be patient!

head of joaquin said:

I hear you. I would hope that eventually advanced economies will evolve beyond capitalism, but we're not in sight of that yet and the course that Marx predicted would occur never developed. Basically the proletariat was outsourced to the third world, while advanced capitalist countries become more bourgeois than ever. So at this point, it's hard to see how advanced capitalism will evolve beyond itself (though perhaps the voluntary value of the internet is model that will arise, like Wikipedia, and somehow flip over to actual goods, rather than just voluntary services)

Click to expand...

Marx's historical determinism I think is pretty false, at least its not knowable. But I don't know how capitalism will evolve, I hope that it will evolve by people coming together and simple refusing to play by capitalisms rules.

gilbertc1908 said:

"runs for the public good" who will and how is the "public good" to be defined???

Click to expand...

Who will depends on the nature of what the specific industry is, and its defined democratically, for example if its a public utility its defined by whoever relies on it, or who it effects, if its say the financial system that is large enough to effect the whole economy, its would be fully publically accountable. Or for other industries I'd say being run as a cooperative is enough.

Keep in mind ... this is just ONE solution, there are many.