• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

American's right when it comes to Christianity and Capitalism.

View attachment 67154317

Survey | Plurality of Americans believe capitalism at odds with Christian values

This is from 2 years back, but still.

You put decades and decades of propaganda starting in the 1920s, trying to priase Capitalism, and make Capitalism the "godly" religion, yet thankfully most Americans are more bible literate than the ruling class would like.

Capitalism is at Odds with Christian values, and even those in a US, a country that has made Capitalism the top Idol and pofit the top God, and have pounded that through decades of propaganda, most people still understand christian values.

What this really shows is, liberals don't know a lot about Christianity.
 
Apparently, you've no idea what capitalism, or the other things you've listed, means.

Feudal = state control
The commons = state control, or anarchy
Democratic control is still state control
Community control is still state control
Then you abandon your entire argument and say "well, we could have some capitalism", as if you realized that your argument is garbage.

The alternative to capitalism IS state control. Your misconstrued fantasies do not qualify as options.

When it was used by a totalitarian state for control of the people. Sure, like Iran today. That's an option. :roll:

I think equating feudalism with state control is a severe mischaracterization. The idea of a state as we imagine them was very far from what existed during the middle ages. Feudalism far more resembles capitalism, in fact. Private ownership was so powerful that there was no state, only the personal holdings of wealthy rulers and aristocrats. Everyone else, by virtue of owning nothing and thus having no power, were merely subjects. People were owned. All that really mattered was how much a person could seize and hold for themselves. That literally determined the law, and the law's overriding objective was to protect what the aristocrats owned. It is that ultimate private power that the modern state was created to oppose.

I think you're really expressing a very healthy mistrust of concentrated power, but tripping on trying to lump state power into a bad column and other kinds of power into a good column. Any unchecked concentration of power is bad. Whether that comes in the form of a government regime, or a private entity. That's why, for example, our checks and balances and replacing our leaders by electing new ones is so important. That keeps power from concentrating.
 
I guess depending upon how wildly fundamentalist you wanna be I suppose you could couple that with Matthew 19:21 and technically call it THE standard.

But if you're being pragmatic (as Christ was) about things and understand that not everyone is called to a life of poverty and the ministry I think you could do worse than doing "more good". I think Luke 6 addresses this a lot better than I could.

The topic is the incompatibility of the gospel message and capitalism, not pragmatism. Nothing wrong with being pragmatic, and I'm for all sorts of pragmatic policies to make capitalism palatable -- a progressive income tax, large public investments in health care and education, strict regulation of capital. But that doesn't go to whether the values of capitalism (which are essentially exploitative) harmonize with the gospel. They do not. Insisting that some wealthy people sometimes do good things, doesn't change that analysis.
 
But that doesn't go to whether the values of capitalism (which are essentially exploitative) harmonize with the gospel. They do not.

Again, there's nothing intrinsically un-Christian about Capitalism.

Likewise, there is nothing to Capitalism that is, of logical necessity, exploitative.

If you can take a simple definition of Capitalism and show me, based solely on that definition, that Capitalism must be exploitative and un-Christian, then maybe we'll have a starting point for debate.

Mind you, I'm not asking for examples of how humans have made Capitalism un-Christian, I'm asking for proof that as an economic system it MUST be un-Christian.

Actually, that's probably where this thread should have started, with the OP offering incontrovertible proof that Capitalism MUST be un-Christian.

So far we are only laboring under someone's assumption that it is.

So before we go any further, or at least before I go any further, I'll expect those who would argue that Capitalism MUST be un-Christian to prove that it MUST be un-Christian.
 
Last edited:
Again, there's nothing intrinsically un-Christian about Capitalism.

Likewise, there is nothing to Capitalism that is, of logical necessity, exploitative.

If you can take a simple definition of Capitalism and show me, based solely on that definition, that Capitalism must be exploitative and un-Christian, then maybe we'll have a starting point for debate.

There's nothing any more inherently "evil" to means of production, factors of production, and profit being privately owned than there is to them being cooperatively or nationally owned. There's nothing any more inherently "evil" to the cost of exchange being mutually agreed upon than there is to them being set by some authority.

Unless the argument here is that NO economic system is suitably Christian and the only way for humans to exist in a Christ-like manner is for us to want nothing, to own nothing, to work for nothing, to work toward nothing, and to exist in a quiet state of prayer and contemplation subsisting on milk and honey (which nobody collects or gathers).

Capitalism is a system whereby those with capital can get those without capital to work for them. It's really that simple. It's exploitative at the core. Just because some workers do well (because of years of struggles for regulation, worker safety, right to unionize, etc.) doesn't mean that the essential relationship isn't one of exploitation. People with resources tell people without resources what to do, when to do it, and where to do it -- or they starve.

If everybody had resources to maintain themselves, capitalism would cease to exist in any meaningful sense. You can only get workers to work for owners of capital because otherwise, they'd starve.
 
Capitalism is a system whereby those with capital can get those without capital to work for them.

At a price agreed to by those who would work.

If everybody had resources to maintain themselves, capitalism would cease to exist.

If I had the means to maintain myself, say a freshwater stream, a couple acres to farm, and a few more of woodland to hunt, I'd still put on a suit and come to work every morning.

There are lots of things I want that don't grow from the ground or swim in a stream.

And of course this doesn't take into consideration things like electricity, medical care, technological/scientific development, the arts, or a million and one other things.
 
At a price agreed to by those who would work.

With one party having resources and the other staving unless they agree. Yeah, that's not coercive or anything. That's like saying the victim agrees to give the mugger his money because he prefers it to getting shot.

If I had the means to maintain myself, say a freshwater stream, a couple acres to farm, and a few more of woodland to hunt, I'd still put on a suit and come to work every morning.

Anecdotes don't make arguments. But I bet you wouldn't work for minimum wage like millions of Americans do.

There are lots of things I want that don't grow from the ground or swim in a stream.

But you'd have bargaining power because you have capital. Most workers don't.

And of course this doesn't take into consideration things like electricity, medical care, technological/scientific development, the arts, or a million and one other things.

Sure it does. Those with more resources might not work at all. Those with fewer resources might work, but wouldn't have to accept minimum wage. And those with the least recources would accept lower wages. This reflects the fact that that at its core capitalism is about exploiting those with fewer resources. Those with more resources exploit those with less. That's why you don't see billionaires working at a Taco Bell.
 
Now, we can argue about the merits of particular ideas - like the progressive income tax - but I have no problem with the very notion of striking some balance between the free market ideal and the wisely designed social safety nets - at least until the markets are allowed to make those nets redundant and obsolete. The safety nets do cost us some freedom, but so does any government activity, starting with defense and policing: it is a matter of priorities, and well-meaning, intelligent people are allowed to disagree there.

The question posed in the OP suggests a different angle, however. Is there something immoral (at least from the POV of Christianity) in capitalism as such - as opposed to alternative socio-economic systems? As an atheist, I should not speak for Christians, but from the POV of the general, more basic, Golden Rule-based morality - no. Both pre-capitalist and anti-capitalist systems are dramatically more immoral, denying freedom of choice to a lot of people, even when physical "opportunities" are present.

I think the question was whether capitalism was compatible with Christianity, not whether it is immoral. An amoral system is incompatible with Christianity, and capitalism is amoral. It allows those with capital to exploit those without capital. Not all people with capital do exploit others, but the system certainly rewards those that do. Such a system is inconsistent with the gospel admonition to help the poor and needy, and not to accumulate wealth for oneself.

So I'm not sure why you disagree with the poll. You can reject the gospel admonition, but I fail to see how you can claim harmonizes with capitalism and its amoral view of human relations.
 
Translation from Progressive: The freedom to have a job if someone out there can offer it.

Apart from any meta-Marxist idiocies, once again: Is freedom of choice "a Christian value"?

Empty rhetoric. To define freedom as the right of people with capital to exploit those without capital is the worst sort of libertarian special pleading. Freedom means the ability to actively participate in the decisions about one's personal life and community life, without those decisions being dominated by those with more power (or capital). Pretending your free if you can get a job at Taco Bell shows how meaningless words are to libertarians
 
capitalism is amoral.

You define "capitalism" as to make it "amoral". The crucial component that makes actual capitalism (as opposed to previous and alternative "social formations") is the free-market element, freedom-of-choice element. Nothing "amoral" about that. The very core of morality.
 
Last edited:
Pretending your free if you can get a job at Taco Bell shows how meaningless words are to libertarians

Taco Bells do not occur naturally, like clouds in the sky. Yes, their existence does require capital, in the first place. If you extinguish the source of that capital, there will be no Taco Bells, or Ma Bells, or anything of the sort.

You are saying I am not really free, if I only can choose between options that are really there? And I will not be any worse off if there are fewer options, thanks to your noble crusade against that all-purpose villain, Capital?

Go tell that to some (extra-dumb) 15-year-old. You see, I have lived there. In the happy land where Capital was no more. I'll pass this time, thank you.
 
Last edited:
With one party having resources and the other staving unless they agree. Yeah, that's not coercive or anything. That's like saying the victim agrees to give the mugger his money because he prefers it to getting shot.

Back in the real world, and to use your analogy, it's like the mugger saying "give me your money" and you being able to say, "Nahh, that deal doesn't really work for me. I'm gonna go down the street and see if I can find a mugger who isn't going to take my money".

Anecdotes don't make arguments.

But ridiculous analogies about muggers do?

But I bet you wouldn't work for minimum wage like millions of Americans do.

Let's try to understand each other here.

You would propose that everyone who is working at a minimum wage job is resigned to such a situation because, despite great skill, intellect, and work ethic "the Capitalist man" is keeping him down (with a jackboot, or some such).

I would propose that everyone who is working at a minimum wage job is resigned to such a situation because despite the abundance of opportunity provided in a Capitalist economy to improve one's self, build marketable skills and knowledge, and generally get ahead most minimum wage workers are too lazy to bother, or suffer from self-defeating habits and addictions that keep them down.

Since neither of us is entirely right, and neither of us is entirely wrong, we'd still wind up with a great many people who, despite being given 40 acres and a mule would still languish and rot unless someone else took responsibility for them.

And lets look at this from another perspective and play a little mental game.

The United States is composed of a little over 3.7 million square miles of territory.

That comes to a little over 2.4 billion acres.

There is a current U.S. population of a little less than 314 million.

If we assume that that total acreage could be divide by that total population such that every man, woman, and child would receive an equal portion, and that every portion would contain EVERYTHING that a human being needs to remain self sufficient then each of them would receive about 7.5 acres.

Those are facts. There's a bit of rounding involved but if we make the assumptions that I've proposed then the math works out okay.

Now lets play the game.

What percentage of the total land mass of the United States do you think actually can provide a human being with everything they need to live?

I'd hazard to guess that it doesn't even begin to approach the total.

When we begin to take into consideration river-less parries, deserts, the Rocky Mountains, swampland, dense, dense, dense Northeastern and Northwestern forests, coastline, and etc...

Maybe half?

Next exercise.

I'm fortunate in that I live in a well forested area in Northwestern NJ. There is actually a real Trout stream (I fish it regularly) down the hill from me and if I were to clear away all the houses there's enough open land that I could farm.

Assuming my neighbors (under the new land distribution scheme) and I could all get along my little municipality at about 7 square miles could sustain about 640 of the current residents of the town.

Wadda we do with the ~7000 current residents?

Do they move? If so, where?

Do I move? If so **** that. I like it here. I'm not moving. You move me, and ΜΟΛON ΛABE, and "from my cold dead hands" and all that claptrap.

So I guess the real question is, how do you propose we equitably and peacefully divide and relocate people?

And what happens if your 7.5 acres happens to be in the middle of the Mojave, or atop Denali, or along a tidal basin?

You're cool with that?

Or do we each get 2.5 acres to accommodate the fact that there is only so much arable, hunt-able land around that also has sufficient water?

But you'd have bargaining power because you have capital. Most workers don't.

Would I?

Would I have bargaining power equal to that of every other resident?

Let's say that my plot of land had lots of fish, which people could eat, but your plot of land had lots of something much rarer like minerals. Salt, or iron, or gold, or whatever.

Wouldn't the simple natural distribution of minerals lead to a society of some "haves" and some "have nots"?

I mean, we already split up all the land so it would be equally distributed and ran people out of their homes and off their previous land so that we could distribute to those who didn't have any. Are you now saying that I don't even own what's mine?

Okay, we'll play that game too.

My new plot of land happens to sit on top of a salt deposit or an iron vein.

I can mine some of either, enough to make me the richest man in town, but I can't mine all of it or anywhere enough to provide for the wants of everyone.

Who comes and mines my land?

And do they have to provide me with some sort of compensation for the inconvenience of hosting their mining operation and for the loss of the use of whatever land they take for that operation?

Who does the compensating in this instance?

Sure it does. Those with more resources might not work at all. Those with fewer resources might work, but wouldn't have to accept minimum wage. And those with the least resources would accept lower wages. This reflects the fact that that at its core capitalism is about exploiting those with fewer resources.

I thought we were trying to get AWAY from Capitalism?

I though we were trying to figure out some way where everyone is equal, though we've seen that even if we try to be equal and "fair" in our redistribution of real property there's still no Earthly way we can really be fair.

So everyone gets an arithmetically equal portion of land but some will have resources that are more valuable and if they're industrious enough they'll exploit that disparity. Others, due to laziness, or ineptitude, or a simple mistake, or an injury, or a natural disaster, will be given an arithmetically equal portion of land but it'll go fallow and unused. What's more, since everyone is working for him or herself who is going to take care of the indigent?



Sure it does. Those with more resources might not work at all. Those with fewer resources might work, but wouldn't have to accept minimum wage. And those with the least recourses would accept lower wages. This reflects the fact that that at its core capitalism is about exploiting those with fewer resources.
 
I don't think so. The Bible says man shall reap what he sows. It doesn't say he shall covet and reap what other people sow.

As for 'Redistribution of Wealth,' that's the program that's unbiblical. Here's why:

Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth « The Righter Report

Cherry picking again, I see.

Matt 5:45 - He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

By the way, the Righter Report was probably the silliest most unbibilical piece of market evangelist agitprop I've read in a while. Thanks for the laugh.
 
Taco Bells do not occur naturally, like clouds in the sky. Yes, their existence does require capital, in the first place. If you extinguish the source of that capital, there will be no Taco Bells, or Ma Bells, or anything of the sort.

You are saying I am not really free, if I only can choose between options that are really there? And I will not be any worse off if there are fewer options, thanks to your noble crusade against that all-purpose villain, Capital?

Go tell that to some (extra-dumb) 15-year-old. You see, I have lived there. In the happy land where Capital was no more. I'll pass this time, thank you.

Yes, because restaurants never existed before capitalism.

Jesus, you market evangelists are so, so, so deluded.

In any case, three cheers for restaurants. Nobody is saying capitalism isn't good at fast food. It is bad at paying a living wage for millions of people who don't have access to capital.
 
Back in the real world, and to use your analogy, it's like the mugger saying "give me your money" and you being able to say, "Nahh, that deal doesn't really work for me. I'm gonna go down the street and see if I can find a mugger who isn't going to take my money".



But ridiculous analogies about muggers do?



Let's try to understand each other here.

You would propose that everyone who is working at a minimum wage job is resigned to such a situation because, despite great skill, intellect, and work ethic "the Capitalist man" is keeping him down (with a jackboot, or some such).

I would propose that everyone who is working at a minimum wage job is resigned to such a situation because despite the abundance of opportunity provided in a Capitalist economy to improve one's self, build marketable skills and knowledge, and generally get ahead most minimum wage workers are too lazy to bother, or suffer from self-defeating habits and addictions that keep them down.

Since neither of us is entirely right, and neither of us is entirely wrong, we'd still wind up with a great many people who, despite being given 40 acres and a mule would still languish and rot unless someone else took responsibility for them.

And lets look at this from another perspective and play a little mental game.

The United States is composed of a little over 3.7 million square miles of territory.

That comes to a little over 2.4 billion acres.

There is a current U.S. population of a little less than 314 million.

If we assume that that total acreage could be divide by that total population such that every man, woman, and child would receive an equal portion, and that every portion would contain EVERYTHING that a human being needs to remain self sufficient then each of them would receive about 7.5 acres.

Those are facts. There's a bit of rounding involved but if we make the assumptions that I've proposed then the math works out okay.

Now lets play the game.

What percentage of the total land mass of the United States do you think actually can provide a human being with everything they need to live?

I'd hazard to guess that it doesn't even begin to approach the total.

When we begin to take into consideration river-less parries, deserts, the Rocky Mountains, swampland, dense, dense, dense Northeastern and Northwestern forests, coastline, and etc...

Maybe half?

Next exercise.

I'm fortunate in that I live in a well forested area in Northwestern NJ. There is actually a real Trout stream (I fish it regularly) down the hill from me and if I were to clear away all the houses there's enough open land that I could farm.

Assuming my neighbors (under the new land distribution scheme) and I could all get along my little municipality at about 7 square miles could sustain about 640 of the current residents of the town.

Wadda we do with the ~7000 current residents?

Do they move? If so, where?

Do I move? If so **** that. I like it here. I'm not moving. You move me, and ΜΟΛON ΛABE, and "from my cold dead hands" and all that claptrap.

So I guess the real question is, how do you propose we equitably and peacefully divide and relocate people?

And what happens if your 7.5 acres happens to be in the middle of the Mojave, or atop Denali, or along a tidal basin?

You're cool with that?

Or do we each get 2.5 acres to accommodate the fact that there is only so much arable, hunt-able land around that also has sufficient water?



Would I?

Would I have bargaining power equal to that of every other resident?

Let's say that my plot of land had lots of fish, which people could eat, but your plot of land had lots of something much rarer like minerals. Salt, or iron, or gold, or whatever.

Wouldn't the simple natural distribution of minerals lead to a society of some "haves" and some "have nots"?

I mean, we already split up all the land so it would be equally distributed and ran people out of their homes and off their previous land so that we could distribute to those who didn't have any. Are you now saying that I don't even own what's mine?

Okay, we'll play that game too.

My new plot of land happens to sit on top of a salt deposit or an iron vein.

I can mine some of either, enough to make me the richest man in town, but I can't mine all of it or anywhere enough to provide for the wants of everyone.

Who comes and mines my land?

And do they have to provide me with some sort of compensation for the inconvenience of hosting their mining operation and for the loss of the use of whatever land they take for that operation?

Who does the compensating in this instance?



I thought we were trying to get AWAY from Capitalism?

I though we were trying to figure out some way where everyone is equal, though we've seen that even if we try to be equal and "fair" in our redistribution of real property there's still no Earthly way we can really be fair.

So everyone gets an arithmetically equal portion of land but some will have resources that are more valuable and if they're industrious enough they'll exploit that disparity. Others, due to laziness, or ineptitude, or a simple mistake, or an injury, or a natural disaster, will be given an arithmetically equal portion of land but it'll go fallow and unused. What's more, since everyone is working for him or herself who is going to take care of the indigent?



Sure it does. Those with more resources might not work at all. Those with fewer resources might work, but wouldn't have to accept minimum wage. And those with the least recourses would accept lower wages. This reflects the fact that that at its core capitalism is about exploiting those with fewer resources.

Honestly, you need to make your points more concisely.

This reduces to you think people without capital are as free as billionaires. They aren't. You need to join the real world and realize that economic coercion exists so long as some people have resources and other don't.

Or you can live in market evangelist bizarroworld.
 
You define "capitalism" as to make it "amoral". The crucial component that makes actual capitalism (as opposed to previous and alternative "social formations") is the free-market element, freedom-of-choice element. Nothing "amoral" about that. The very core of morality.

Your empty rhetoric is noted.

Meanwhile, some capitalist get rich on sweatshops with forced child labor abroad. If you can't bring yourself to say that's immoral, just say so and be done with it.
 
Cherry picking again, I see.

Matt 5:45 - He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

By the way, the Righter Report was probably the silliest most unbibilical piece of market evangelist agitprop I've read in a while. Thanks for the laugh.

But then, as the Bible says, you're spiritually challenged (1 Corinthians 2:14), and cannot comprehend spiritual truths. So what would you know?
 
But then, as the Bible says, you're spiritually challenged (1 Corinthians 2:14), and cannot comprehend spiritual truths. So what would you know?

The bible also says that God has blinded those like you who refuse to accept the plain message of the gospel.

2 Thessalonians 2 10-12
 
The bible also says that God has blinded those like you who refuse to accept the plain message of the gospel.

2 Thessalonians 2 10-12

Oh I accept the Gospel, just not your twisted version of it.
 
Oh I accept the Gospel, just not your twisted version of it.

No, just the opposite. Although I have pointed out the plain language condemning the rich, you keep posting your market evangelism, condoning the rich and ignoring our obligation to the weak and poor -- the essence of the gospel message.

Beware of Matthew 25! Jesus will ask you one question and it won't be about the size of your 401(k)
 
No, just the opposite. Although I have pointed out the plain language condemning the rich, you keep posting your market evangelism, condoning the rich and ignoring our obligation to the weak and poor -- the essence of the gospel message.

Beware of Matthew 25! Jesus will ask you one question and it won't be about the size of your 401(k)

It's not a sin to be rich. Job was rich, Abraham was rich, God blessed Solomon with riches, etc. It's only a problem when money becomes one's idol and its importance surpasses serving God and one's neighbors. So you need to modify your beliefs on that.
 
Capitalism isn't necessarily incompatible with Christianity or any other ethical system, but corporatism is incompatible with most ethical systems, including Christianity. By corporatism I mean the belief and practice that puts the financial interest of a company's owners (stockholders) above all interests, including the company's employees, community and customers. That is the key legal obligation for for-profit corporations. One of the main reasons to organize a corporation is to protect the employees and owners from being held responsible for their actions, which is a license to act unethically without even having to be embarrassed. Others have correctly observed that the personality of corporation is similar to a sociopath or psychopath.

Yes, you can find examples of good corporate behavior, but that is usually because the corporation decided it was in the interest of the owners to appear ethical or generous. In other cases, it may be because some individuals within the corporation acted against the owner's interests.
 
Your empty rhetoric is noted.

Meanwhile, some capitalist get rich on sweatshops with forced child labor abroad. If you can't bring yourself to say that's immoral, just say so and be done with it.

What capitalist, which sweatshop? Details, please. And an explanation, how it relates to the topic. In the pre-capitalist societies, children working in the field was a norm - a necessity, indeed.

And "child labor abroad" is almost exclusively happening under the rule of socialist or even communist regimes, from Bangladesh to China to Vietnam to Angola to Nicaragua.
 
It's not a sin to be rich. Job was rich, Abraham was rich, God blessed Solomon with riches, etc. It's only a problem when money becomes one's idol and its importance surpasses serving God and one's neighbors. So you need to modify your beliefs on that.

Sure it's a sin. James says so.

Oh I get it -- you've confused the Old Testament with the New Testament. A common mistake of evangelicals.
 
Back
Top Bottom