Capitalism: Neutral or Religious Problem?

[Unagidon]

Is capitalism inherently exploitative? Does it valorize greed as a virtue? Is it a "neutral" economic structure within which people can be personally ethical? Is there such a thing as a neutral economic structure? Does capitalism (especially modern capitalism) break down families and communities and if so, should we care from a relgious point of view? Can its bad tendencies be controlled?

I'll stop now.

[Smokering]

Er... dunno. My personal view is that any system of economics or government would work perfectly if humans were perfect; and no system will work perfectly given that humans aren't. Capitalism, communism, socialism, monarchies, democracies... no system is perfect enough to mitigate the fact that humans are selfish, greedy so-and-sos who will manipulate anything going to fulfil their own sinful desires.

So yes, capitalism doesn't work; but I don't think any alternatives would 'work' either, in terms of curing sin.

Which I realise is a fairly lackadaisical attitude to have, and it's just as well I'm not in politics. But it's the best answer I've got.

[CherryBomb]

OMG. I agree with Smokering.

Write that down, I don't know if it will ever happen again

[angelpie545]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Er... dunno. My personal view is that any system of economics or government would work perfectly if humans were perfect; and no system will work perfectly given that humans aren't. Capitalism, communism, socialism, monarchies, democracies... no system is perfect enough to mitigate the fact that humans are selfish, greedy so-and-sos who will manipulate anything going to fulfil their own sinful desires.

So yes, capitalism doesn't work; but I don't think any alternatives would 'work' either, in terms of curing sin.

Which I realise is a fairly lackadaisical attitude to have, and it's just as well I'm not in politics. But it's the best answer I've got.

Good points, yes.

[Smokering]

LOL. An historic occasion. World, beware.

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by Smokering

LOL. An historic occasion. World, beware.

[aprons_and_acorns]

Originally Posted by Unagidon

Is capitalism inherently exploitative?

I answer yes to this, and I don't know to the rest. I'm interested to see what others have to say.

This is my first post on this forum but I have lurked a bit.

[athansor]

My thoughts are that modern capitalism is not a morally neutral system, as it basically is motivated by greed. I think it should be a religious concern, and frankly, it baffles me a bit that there are currently such strong ties between Chritsitanity and big business capitalism.

[cappuccinosmom]

Wow. I totally agree with Smokering. Humans are imperfect, and any system is going to be flawed (and liable to be abused) as a result.

[cappuccinosmom]

I also think our opinions are colored by experience somewhat. I have friends, who are living such privelaged lives in a free and democratic capitalistic country who idolize communism and find fault with democracy and capitalism. My husband, OTOH, while he appreciated the local village culture and community in his home country suffered severely under a national communistic government. So....he's not particularly unhappy with the opportunities he has here in the States. Having seen his father work hard and lose everything in a redistribution of property, he is not at all opposed to hard work being rewarded.

[WuWei]

I believe that capitalism is the purest form of consensualism and is not inherently "evil" in any way. In fact, the pursuit of profit (benefit for one's own self via monetary value) is merely a symbolic representation of an exchange of value. The constructs of personal property, assumed. (a huge caveat) I believe in the inherent generosity and communal spirit of humans and that the presumption that humans are inherently evil to be the root of most all conflict.




Pat

[thismama]

Capitalism as it is currently performed, and as it has been performed historically, is inherently unethical yes, and so a serious spiritual concern.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by thismama

Capitalism as it is currently performed, and as it has been performed historically, is inherently unethical yes, and so a serious spiritual concern.

I would have to agree. Most of the changes to western capitalism since the middle ages have made it more unequal and centralised wealth.

There was always a distinction between rich and poor, but at one time manufacture of goods was controlled by workers through the guilds. Those who wove cloth for a living owned the looms, determined the prices of their goods, and controlled working conditions. The destruction of the guild system was brought about by the wealthy who ended up owning and controlling the production of goods, which made the economic system far more unbalanced.

One big change was the legalization of interest. In most of Europe, at one time, it was illegal to charge interest on anything. It was considered to be against Christian teachings. Our current economic system is now based on the idea of interest, which has certainly been of no benefit to the poor, but which has made a small number of people/businesses very wealthy.

Other changes over the years have had similar effects. The only time there was a "break away" from this system was during Communist revolutions, which brought about an economic system which had problems of its own.

I am not sure if you could call the medieval economic system "capitalism" but whatever it was, it was fairer and less morally suspect than the current one.

[cappuccinosmom]

I am not sure if you could call the medieval economic system "capitalism" but whatever it was, it was fairer and less morally suspect than the current one.

I've always thought that the medieval system was feudalism. If that's true, how would it have been fairer?

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

I've always thought that the medieval system was feudalism. If that's true, how would it have been fairer?

Why could it not have been fairer? There is unfairness in both systems, of different kinds.

Anybody involved in a craft or some type of manufacture would belong to a guild. The guild provided services for its members and their families, like funeral expenses, dowries and a kind of health insurance. It strictly regulated prices and competition so no single producer could corner the market or drive others out of business. Even the wealthiest, for centuries, had no say in how weavers, bakers etc. worked or how much they made - that was decided by the workers themselves, as a group. Until the change to the modern capitalist system, even the wealthiest were not allowed to manufacture an item made by guild members. It kept both wealth and power balanced.

When you say feudalism is unfair, maybe you mean the existence of serfdom; but even serfs had more rights and legally protected privileges than modern day wage workers.

[Brigianna]

Well, capitalism is one thing, corporatism is another. I truly believe that corporations have no redeeming value. They are intrinsically amoral. They are creations of the worst aspects of human greed merged with the worst aspects of mob mentality and all wrapped up with equal rights but fewer responsibilities than humans. I do not believe that they are in accordance with the natural order of life.

Business, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with that. You make something, you have something, you sell it and use the proceeds to buy something you want. That's fine. You can perform moral acts as a businessperson or you can perform immoral acts, but either way you, yourself, the individual, can be morally accountable for your actions. You can choose to pay your workers a living wage or you can choose to keep them as slaves. You can choose to be honest in your business dealings or you can choose to lie. In the case of the individual business owner, I agree with the pps who point out that regardless of the system, people will be flawed individuals and there can be good and bad in everyone.

But you bring corporations into it, and that's a whole different kettle. There is no personal responsibility. There is no *person.* There's a legal entity. There's assets. The only responsibility is to the shareholders. If you're the head of a corporation, and you *want* your business to have more ethical practices, you can't do it! Every effort is made under the corporate model to remove every trace of the possibility of human conscience meddling in profits. And corporate apologists have the audacity to talk about free markets! A market isn't free if there's a corporation in there. There's no "free market" when a court says that a living breathing human being and an imaginary bureaucratic smokescreen have equal rights.

[WuWei]

Brigianna, I could not disagree with you more!

The only issue is the governmental "favors" afforded corporations. The whole tax benefits and loopholes, and directed funding (ie paying tobacco growers not to grow, etc.). The corporation is as moral or amoral as the shareholders allow. And there is no restriction on the consumer's decision making power.

When a company is allowed preferred access to the market through government restricting competition, therein lies the imbalance of power. The market will always rebalance itself with free entry.

The pursuit of money is no evil.


Pat

[mamajama]

Originally Posted by WuWei

The pursuit of money is no evil.

I don't know about 'evil' but it is ethically questionable at the very least so long as there are those whose access to resources is compromised or denied in order to pursue material gain.

[mamajama]

Is capitalism inherently exploitative?

So far it has been.

Does it valorize greed as a virtue?

yes. The manufactured nobility in 'pulling oneself up by the bootstraps' and The idea that protecting capitalism means protecting 'freedom' , and then the flipside---being anti-capitalist means willing to do away with our Fundamental Freedoms as Human Beings.
People who use the system, rely on social safety nets, panhandle or otherwise engage in self-sustaining activities that are deemed non-productive are considered to have less worthy character and less virtue.

Is there such a thing as a neutral economic structure?

Well, I think that theoretically there could be. Captitalism certainly doesn't even pretend to strive for it though. I think a good strong benevolent socialist dictatorship with the goal of anarchy is the way to go. Although I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon

Does capitalism (especially modern capitalism) break down families and communities and if so, should we care from a relgious point of view?

I di think so, yes. I think that patriarchal capitalism essentially eschews any notion of 'chosen family' if it is not commoditisable. Therefore, any family that deviates from the acceptable (read: commoditisable) norm is shunned, disparaged and broken down. This is spiritually harmful. Any type of community formation that threatens economic gain and private enterprise is considered deviant in our caitalist society.

[WuWei]

Originally Posted by mamajama

I don't know about 'evil' but it is ethically questionable at the very least so long as there are those whose access to resources is compromised or denied in order to pursue material gain.

Independent investors of capital who use their own money, or acquire other capital investors, are not "compromising or denying resources to others".


Pat