Alex S - christianity and capitalism

[anonymous]

This is especially aimed at alex, the liberty club president, but also to anyone else who has any ideas - how can christianity which advocates giving everything you have to the poor and having a non-materialistic attitude towards your worldly possessions, be compatible with capitalism - which is an inately selfish and greedy attitude based upon the idea that material possessions are important? Discuss!!

[Prophet Tenebrae]

The obvious answer is that Christanity - or perhaps more accurately Christians - operate much like the citizens in George Orwell's 1984 - with the old Double Think. Rigourously enforced double standards that they often don't seem aware of but hell that's what makes the world go around, so why blame just those Christians - except the patronising ones.

[piers]

There was is perfectly good answer to this question on the libertyclub website, that can be accessed by clicking on one of the banners.

However I have copied it over to make it easier for people: it is rather long.

"When I explain to people that I am a Christian and a libertarian I get strange looks. I found this especially true when I was in Scotland not too long ago. It seemed that almost all of the Scots were socialists. And they were especially horrified by my assertion that I could claim to believe in Jesus
and yet at the same time support a free market.
Over here in the States, it seems that most people claim, at least, to support capitalism. But, I have found some Christian conservatives who also cannot understand how anyone could call himself a Christian and a libertarian. Some seem to think that libertarians are libertines who do not believe in traditional morality. Worst yet, they believe that it is the role of government to defend many of their values.
I, on the other hand, of course, see no conflict between my Christian beliefs and my libertarian views. Indeed, I find it difficult to understand how anyone could call himself a Christian and not be at least somewhat in support of libertarian views. Do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting that socialists,
and other statists, cannot be good Christians and thus cannot be saved. Your political views have nothing to do with your salvation. Only your faith in the Lord Jesus and your willingness to follow his commands can save you. However, I would suggest that Christianity should go hand in hand with
liberty. Many accuse libertarians of wanting to reject the idea of community and of embracing radical individualism. That may certainly be true of some libertarians. Indeed, it was the case with some of the early Christians, such as the desert monks. And let us not forget John the Baptist, who, it is said, lived in the wilderness and ate "locusts and wild honey" (Mark 1:6). Yet, most of us, like most Christians, want to be part of society. We want to be part of those "little platoons" that Edmund Burke wrote about. We, by and large, embrace the idea of community. Yet, we do not seek to impose it on others.
Christian socialists will argue that Christ taught us to take care of the poor. This much is true. We ought to never fail to help out our fellow man, either through charity or on an individual basis,whenever possible. But, Christian socialists take this one step further by arguing that the state must
take an active role in the redistribution of wealth. They point to the early Christians about whom it
was written that they "had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need" (Acts 2:44-45) They use verses from the Bible such as that to justify their philosophy of forced government redistribution of wealth. However, this argument is seriously flawed. It is important to note that at no point in the New Testament did Jesus, or any of his apostles, advocate the use of force to achieve the kingdom of God on earth. The early Christians did
not approve the use of force, or even the threat of force, to hold their community together. They shared all because they wanted to share all. They believed that Jesus would be returning soon so they wanted to live as though they were already in God's kingdom.

How different that is from the modern socialist vision! So consumed with this world, and the things of this world, socialists have used the oppressive power of the state in an attempt to create a world paradise. By doing so, they have only succeed in creating hell on earth. Open any history book and
one can see the failure of socialism. In the Soviet Union, National Socialist Germany, China, North Korea, Cuba, and in various other places around the globe, socialists have attempted to force their philosophy on the world. But, in doing so they have ignored God and God's commands. They have attempted to force their morality on everyone. And those who rejected it were sent off to the Gulag or the concentration camps to be punished, just as the "heretics" in the middle ages were burned at the stake.

In modern democratic countries the socialists have not been so brazen, perhaps only because they have not succeeded in gaining such firm control. You will not be sent off to the Gulag, if you object to redistribution of wealth in any western country. But, the government will still take your money. In the US, armed agents of the Federal government will come after you if you do not "contribute" the right amount of money. You will be thrown in prison for several years if you hinder the state in their campaign of compassion.

I cannot accept the notion that the Prince of Peace would approve of such tactics. This is not to suggest that Christians ought not to obey the law by not paying taxes. After all, Christ did say "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Mark 12:17). And, most libertarians would concede that
government does need to collect some money to pay for the basics. Government, most of us believe, as Locke did, has an obligation to defend our lives, liberties, and our properties. But, it is not the job of the government to do much else. It is not the job of the state, for example, to feed the hungry.
That is the job, however, of individual Christians. Of course, socialists will protest by saying that it is not compassionate to advocate less government. But, compassion cannot be defined by how much one supports the spending of other people’s money.

The second main problem with socialism is that it does not work. Again, look at history and the world around you. Which countries have been the poorest? The Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba,East Germany, and all other nations that have adopted socialism have ended up on the bottom rung of the world economy. Then does socialism really help the poor? Is it compassionate to support redistribution of wealth then? Would you rather be a poor person in the United States (where you would likely have a car, colour television, and easy access to food) or would you rather be a poor
person in socialistic North Korea (where you would be dying of starvation)? An economy based on free market principles allows for maximum economic growth and that benefits all. Sure, some benefit
more than others, but would you rather have some very wealthy and some poor or have almost everyone poor? I think the answer is obvious.

Now that it has been demonstrated that the free market is superior to socialism, we must now consider the benefits of personal freedom. I have found that some people support personal freedom, but not economic freedom and vis versa. This makes little sense, however. What is the point of having economic freedom if you cannot spend your money and your free time how you want to spend it? And what is the point of personal freedom if you have no time or money to spend? The two go hand in hand. Personal freedom, however, can never mean the freedom to infringe on the rights of others. But, as a general principle, people ought to be able to do what they want to do so long as no other person's life, liberty, or property is put at risk. This means that people ought to be able to do things that others find offensive such as, taking drugs, making racist remarks, or
contracting with prostitutes, just to name a few. Again, this does not mean that libertarians are libertines. I believe all of the actions listed above are sinful. We as individuals and as a society have a right to comment on the morality of those who do immoral things. However, we ought not to use the
force of government against those who are not directly hurting others. Clement of Alexandria, an early Christian teacher, put it best when he wrote that “Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sin. For God crowns those who abstain from wickedness by choice, not
those who abstain by compulsion.”

Also, using the government to fight against immorality is very ineffective. The drug war is a prime example of this. Despite all of the time and money that western governments have used to fight a war on drugs, the problem is just as bad as it ever was. To fight the war, the government needs to take money out of the economy, through taxes, and this, in turn, leads to less economic growth and less wealth. In addition, every minute a government is spending on the war on drugs is one less minute that it is spending on important things, such as putting murderers, rapists, robbers, and other real criminals in prison. In conclusion, it seems right to say that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Christ said that he came that we “might have life, and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). And while he was talking more about eternal life, he certainly was also speaking of our lives in the present. Thus, if it seems reasonable that less government and more freedom will lead to a better, although still very much imperfect, world, then Christians ought not to shrink from advocating liberty.

William Cooke"

[pilot]

I am a Christian and many of my colleagues wonder how I can also be a capitalist without encountering conflicts between my faith and economic ideology. My reasons are simple and I have summarised them below. As it happens I do not believe that capitalism is the best way of running an economy, but more that it is the most practical found so far. In summary: Private property is a necessary institution, at least in a fallen world; men work more and dispute less when goods are private than when they are common. But it is to be tolerated as a concession to human frailty and not applauded as desirable in itself; the ideal - if only man's nature could rise to it - is close to communism. The reasons why it is not perfect communism can be found in sections 2 and 3.

The reasons why capitalism in our world works best:

1) Selfishness:
Anti-Capitalist systems, like communism fundamentally require all individuals to be altruistic and prepared to put their penny's worth in 100% of the time. However individuals fundamentally are selfish shirkers, who will avoid doing work so long as it doesn't impinge on them. That is why the Capitalist system works well, people work hard because shirking does not pay off and there is little option but to work. We must operate a social system which is right for the people: if people are fundamentally selfish, it is a nonstarter to force them into an altruistic, communist, system. Even under the capitalist system which rewards hard work, shirking exists.

The only time when socialism really worked was after the world wars, when the social culture meant that everyone was determined to work hard and put in their full effort, rewarded or unrewarded as part of a large countrywide team spirit. At that point it may have been possible to set up a viable alternative to the capitalist system, but with the rise in selfishness and people constantly searching for pastures greener, however fortunate they are, a non-capitalist system has become completely unviable and would be impossible to institute: it's hard enough to put together a team of University students to work on a project and get hard work out of all of them - on a countrywide scale we would be doomed to low productivity. Incentives are vital to make people do their bit.

2) Efficient pricing systems:
I like going home during the semester, however, how often I do this is regulated by price: it would be inefficient to have free transport - or I would go home every week-end, so price acts as a kind of efficient quota system. Instead of the state telling me how often I travel home, I get to choose - deciding whether to drink more bier or go home more often. Depending on which I value most, I consume most and am charged an efficient price, so that those who do not like going home, but purely drink bier do not have to subsidise me and vice versa. Such a system allows me also not to consume goods, for example if everything was quota-controlled, in an anti-capitalist society, some of my quota would be for foods, etc. which I would not want. Very quickly people would want to exchange those goods that they did not want with others and so a price system would once again develop even in an anti-capitalist system. The reason why the price system develops is because if I want to buy a can of cola in exchange for a cigarette I must search for people wishing to exchange 1 can of cola for 1 cigarette; this is much harder than simply finding someone who will buy 1 cigarette for money, which I can then take to whoever is prepared to sell 1 can of cola. Put simply in any society you will usually find it easier to buy a product for money than through bartering. However as soon as money is introduced into the equation a capitalist system develops, as people discover than they can make a small profit by retailing etc.

In communist and excessively socialist systems, prices are set by the government, this tends towards excessive over-production of some goods and under-production of others. The good thing about the capitalist price system is that it sets supply equal to demand; if a product is wanted, price rises, encouraging more people to produce it until supply picks up and the price falls again.

3) Other efficiencies:
Anti-capitalists often believe that in an anti-capitalist system everyone can do what they want. This is a big fallacy, different jobs require different skills and in an efficient world it is necessary to train people into certain professions: otherwise no-one would do many of the jobs on offer today, e.g. washing dishes and everyone would want to be e.g. a disco DJ. Barriers to joining the most popular professions and incentives to train for the more demanding professions must exist in order to efficiently allocate people to each profession.

4) Empirical examples:
Compare these countries which were similar in every aspect 100 years ago:

S. Korea and N. Korea
W. Germany and E. Germany
Austria and Hungary
Taiwan and China

The policies the governments have followed and each country's economic wellbeing correlate.

5) Usury:
The interest argument is difficult and I would be inclined to believe that charging interest to someone who is very poor and is buying just the essentials (e.g. a roof over their head or the basic tools to be able to work, but certainly not a TV) would be wrong (Lev. 25:35-37). However if someone is buying luxury goods, e.g. a TV then they should have to pay commercial rates (Lev. 25:8 onwards deals with varying rates depending on the number of years you have something, read money for farmland and interest for corn). Whether we charge interest to a starving man is generally quite a different thing from charging interest to the average person within the extremely affluent United Kingdom. A failure to charge interest explains why some countries which prohibit usury are very poor; as no-one is prepared to save and thus credit is impossible to get. It is no good telling others they should not charge interest if we are not making our money available to borrow precisely because we have no incentive to do so. Mathew 25 seems to suggest putting money to use wisely and Jesus criticises one of the sons for hiding his money and not putting it in the bank which would have allowed others to use it wisely and earn the son interest.


A point I’ve read from elsewhere, which I find particularly convincing:

To put right the previous oversight, William Baumol, a veteran economist at Princeton University, has written a splendid new book, “The Free-Market Innovation Machine”. Building on the insights of Schumpeter and even of Marx (though this is a devoutly pro-capitalist tome), he argues that it is, above all, the ability to produce a continuous stream of successful innovations that makes capitalism the best economic system yet for generating growth. This is for two main reasons. Under capitalism, “innovative activity—which in other types of economy is fortuitous and optional—becomes mandatory, a life-and-death matter for the firm.” Second, new technology is spread much faster because, under capitalism, it can pay for innovators to share their knowledge and “time is money”.

Some economists debate why countries such as America are more blessed with entrepreneurs than others (the former Soviet Union, say). Mr Baumol argues that there are entrepreneurs in every sort of system: what differs is whether or not they devote their energies to producing innovations that add to economic growth. And this depends on the incentives provided by the economic system. Non-capitalist systems often give entrepreneurs most of their rewards for innovations that do not contribute to growth, such as finding clever ways to win patronage from the state, creating monopolies, or crime. There is some of that in capitalist countries, but far more upside for growth-producing innovators.

From: The Economist (www.economist.com)

[Eliot Wilson]

Out of interest, is it more likely that:

a) I'm going to read everything on this thread,

or

b) fly to the moon with my arse on fire?

Votes now.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

My informed opinion after not reading any of the verbose hyperbole is that Christians are bad and should be banned - like cigarettes.

[the weight of echoes]

I am writing in defence of no political ideology of any kind.

1. Christianity is not up for discussion by non-Christians.

2. Christians have an obligation to ease suffering by any non-violent means necessary, including wealth redistribution.

3. We live in a fallen world - therefore people are selfish - therefore it's OK to allow an economic system that gives people no choice other than to be selfish. WHAT?

4. If you a Christian, what you want and what makes you happy doesn't matter. If this conflicts with what God wants, you have to do what God wants.

5. The richer you are, the wider the gap between what you need and what you deserve.

6. The early Christians can hardly be described as "non-forceful". They were non-violent, but that's a very different thing. Paul, Peter, John and most of all Jesus Himself, are some of the most polemical figures in history. The truth of the Gospel is forceful enough in itself that anyone who understands it, will accept it. It is the duty of every Christian to help the world to understand this Gospel.

7. Socialism/Communism led to mass exploitation, misery, starvation. And capitalism, of course, does none of these things. It seems to me that the abuse of socialism is what led to the suffering, not the use of it. I am not informed enough about politics to defend this view.

8. "Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's".
"The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it". A Christian's life, a Christian's liberty and a Christian's property all belong to God. Anything you have that someone else has a greater need of, you have no right to.

[Greebo]

Why is christianity not up for discussion by non-christians?

[Ben Spiers]

Because if it was, they might see how silly and dangerous organised religion is.

[hr]Mermaids doesn't put on plays; we fund them.

[Greebo]

oh yeah!
silly me :-p

[the weight of echoes]

[s]Greebo wrote on 20:09, 14th Oct 2002:
Why is christianity not up for discussion by non-christians?




Because if you're not a Christian, it's impossible to understand what Christianity is, which is why you should be one.

And there's a difference between "Christianity" and "organised religion". You can have one without the other. But what do I know? Christianity isn't a religion.

[LeopardSkinQueen]

Why is it impossible?

There is no reason for it to be impossible. It is a cop out argument I have seen from Christians several times, usually fundamentalists. It didn't wash with me the first time, and it doesn't wash now.

Its just a convenient excuse used to ignore any valid criticism of Christianity.

[hr]The philosopher Didactylos has summed up an alternative hypothesis as 'Things just happen. What the hell.'

[Greebo]

What leopard said.

Christianity isn't a religion.

Whit?????
Course it's a religion - if it ain't a religion what is it? (Obviously there are different versions of it, half of which think the other half are wrong but there you go)

[the weight of echoes]

What's a fundamentalist?


Christianity is not a religion - it's a relationship. A religion is something that tells you have to do certain things to put yourself right with God. Christianity teaches that there is nothing you can do to put yourself right with God. How could there be? Is there anything that you could ever do that could impress God? Could you ever compare to God in any way? No. This is why we need Jesus, whose death and resurrection is what puts us right with God, not us, not our own efforts. Religion cannot, for this reason, reveal God for who God is. C.S. Lewis: "Nothing you can do can make God love you more, and nothing you can do can make God love you less". This is why you can't understand Christianity if you haven't first accepted God's love for you, by putting your faith in Christ. Very difficult, but worth it. The truth will set you free.

Perhaps I should start a new thread. I've changed the subject...

[the-old-coarse-experience]

[s]the weight of echoes wrote on 22:08, 14th Oct 2002:
Perhaps I should start a new thread.


Perhaps you should take your medication.

[Al]

"Because if you're not a Christian, it's impossible to understand what Christianity is"

I am not a fish. And yet I understand what the sea is. It's a big wet thing. Many of the people here are not Christians and yet they understand what Christianity is. If you are typical, it's a refuge for nutters.

[hr]"You know what charm is: a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question."

[Greebo]

I can't force myself to put my faith in something I see no evidence for.

[Bill]

That is exactly why Christianity and a free society ("capitalism") go together so well. Only in a society where people are free to make their own choices does Christianity not get banned. It was those who believe in big government - such as Kev Head - that banned the CU three years ago from the Union, and those of who who supported freedom that got the ban reversed.

[James Baster]

[s]Unregisted User Bill wrote on 17:39, 14th Oct 2002:
It was those who believe in big government - such as Kev Head - that banned the CU three years ago from the Union, and those of who who supported freedom that got the ban reversed.


Actually, you entirely miss the point. Kev Head beleves in freedom, he belives that every society should be open to every single student (I assume) The CUs policy was/is(?) to ask all members to sign a decleration of faith.
This was worded such that members of one denomonation (Catholic? I can't remmember) could not sign. Thats discriminating against some students; how is that "freedom"? He banned them when they wouldnt agree to change it. The union rules say all Societys must be open to all students. The CU clearly wasnt.

[hr]
[s]One, Nothing wrong with me, Two, Nothing Wrong with me, Three, Nothing Wrong with me, Four, Nothing Wrong with me - Drowning Pool[/s]

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Isn't any declaration of faith discriminating? More importantly isn't that the point?