Is capitalism the answer?

[TruelightUK]

Stogus, you make some excellent points in your last post, and I would heartily endorse much of what you say, particulary about depending on God and not human beings. However, I would say that you paint only part of the picture.

4. God blesses those who work hard.

Indeed - and also believes in 'a fair day's pay for a fair day's work'

"Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth." Proverbs 10:4

But are these the onlysources of poverty and wealth - why do the wicked prosper while the innocent are devoured in the street??

Does God provide for all his creatures? Yes

Do sinful human beings and thier institutions sometimes disrupt the flow of that divine supply?

I think those who trust fully in God and his will for our life will be have all they require.

I'm not sure how fully the Bible bears that out. And I'm not sure that that is exactly fair on the sincere Christian strugging to stay alive in a shanty town of South America, or a famine zone of Africa.

There is a dangerous underlying implication in much of this thread that if anyone is homeless, starving, or penniless they must, by definition, be either lazy or lacking in faith. I don't see that anywhere in the Bible - except in the words of Job's supposed 'comforters'. (I certainly don't see it in the world around us today.) In the words and actions of God, the poor and needy are consistently viewed with compassion, without any sense of blame being attatched. Whereas the rich are frequently upbraided for their greed and heartlessness, and seldom congratulated for their initiative and hard work.

Anthony

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by TruelightUK


Not really. I'm enquiring as to the extent to which a cpitalist system is compatible with the ideals of the Bible - whether it is inherently just, compassionate and edifying to humanity in general.
Personal responsibilities are another issue, which I would rather not try and throw into this thread. Though it is, I guess, valid to ask whether or not secular governments should be expected to promote godly standards of righteousness and justice, or whether these matters are purely a matter for individual conscience.

Anthony

But Christianity, compassion and charity are about the individual, not about government or economic structures. I bring this up because you are the one asking, "How do these capitalist ideals relate to Christian / Biblical concepts of social justice and compassion?"

John

 

[TruelightUK]

So, Bear, do you believe that the Bible has nothing to say about the need for just and compassionate social structures? That governments have no role in enforcing God's standards upon their subjects, or restraining the forces of evil, greed and injustice within society? That the welfare of the poor and needy is entirely down to the conscience of individuals, and outside the remit of state institutions?

And, of course, on the other side of the argument, do you not feel that any society is made up of individuals embracing that society's ideals, which then influences their own individual attitudes and behaviour? So would a capitalist system influence its members, generally, towards or away from compassionate, just and godly behaviour?

Anthony

 

[TheBear]

"So, Bear, do you believe that the Bible has nothing to say about the need for just and compassionate social structures?"

Correct.


"That governments have no role in enforcing God's standards upon their subjects, or restraining the forces of evil, greed and injustice within society? That the welfare of the poor and needy is entirely down to the conscience of individuals, and outside the remit of state institutions?"

Correct, again.


"And, of course, on the other side of the argument, do you not feel that any society is made up of individuals embracing that society's ideals, which then influences their own individual attitudes and behaviour?"

No. I feel that society of any kind, is a direct reflection of the collective morales and attitudes of the individual.


"So would a capitalist system influence its members, generally, towards or away from compassionate, just and godly behaviour?"

No. There are wealthy people who are selfish and anti-social, then there are other wealthy people who are kind, charitable, and compassionate beyond belief. Money, or the lack thereof, has absolutely nothing to do with things spiritual.


John

 

[TruelightUK]

A rather hurried reply to The Bear's last post:

(1) The Bible has nothing to say about just social structures

I suggest you take a close look at the Old Testament social laws, which go to great legthe to avoid the polarisation of society and exploitation of the weak and vulnerable. Leviticus 25 is a good place to start.


(2) Governments have no role in enforcing godly conduct or restraining the forces of evil etc.

That seems very much at odds with the Biblical witness. Take, for example Paul's words in Romans 13 (1-6):

..The powers that be are ordained of God... rulers are not a terror to good behaviour but to evil... Do what is good and thou shallt have praise of the same... (but)if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword invain: for he is a minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil

If an activity or attitude is 'evil', it remains 'evil' whether the individual recognises the fact or not. And governments which fail to intervene against evil and for righteousness are falling short in their God-given duty. You might also reflect on the fate of rulers who are 'weighed in the balance and found wanting'!


(3) The welfare of the poor is entirely a matter for individual conscience

From which I surmise that governments which allow the poor and needy to die in the streets without any state-sponsored intervention are not to be criticised? Whereas those who use tax-payers money on social welfare programmes (public health, housing, unemployment benetfits etc.) are abusing their power by taking away the right of individuals to choose whether or not to give to such causes?

See also the Biblical response in points (1) and (2) above.


(4) Individuals shape and influence society, and not vice versa

I don't think you'd find many sociologists, psychologists or anthropologists who'd support you on that one. And the Bible also warns against "allowing the world to conform you to its way of thinking" (Rom 12:1 - paraphrased)

Of course there are some folk whose personalities are are 'naturally' inclined towards loving, compassionate attitudes, and others who are 'naturally' more geared towards selfish and ruthless behaviour. However, while I am not a great fan of behaviourism, I don't think anyone can deny that the way our behaviour is responded to has some influence on the way these 'natural' (genetically determined) tendencies develop. If a particular behaviour is consistently encouraged and rewarded (socially, emotionally, educationally or financially) it will tend to increase, while an attitude or action that is consistently discouraged or punished will tend to decrease (at least being suppressed, if not actually modified). This is reeflected in the Bible's teaching on "bringing up a child in the way that he should go" - we 'nurture' those attitudes which are godly and righteous, while correcting those which are offensive to God.. And if this holds true for family life, why not also for the wider 'human family' - the attitudes and behaviours which society actively values will generally tend to predominate, except where there is a greater force exerted in another direction (which is where counter-cultures develop).


(5)Money has nothing to do with things spiritual

Yet the love of it is the root of all evil! (1 Tim 6:10)


Anthony

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by TruelightUK
So, Bear, do you believe that the Bible has nothing to say about the need for just and compassionate social structures? That governments have no role in enforcing God's standards upon their subjects, or restraining the forces of evil, greed and injustice within society? That the welfare of the poor and needy is entirely down to the conscience of individuals, and outside the remit of state institutions?

Well... Keep in mind that before there *were* state institutions, people felt they had an obligation to do these things personally. Now, the government is telling them "we're doing it", but doing it badly.

And, of course, on the other side of the argument, do you not feel that any society is made up of individuals embracing that society's ideals, which then influences their own individual attitudes and behaviour? So would a capitalist system influence its members, generally, towards or away from compassionate, just and godly behaviour?

I would guess that a capitalist system would encourage people to feel that they, themselves, get to decide what to do... If they're Christians, this would probably involve charity, no?

I think every other system promotes worse ideas and attitudes.

 

[TruelightUK]

At this point, let me acknowledge that I don't feel any political system has all the answers - or that capitalism is necessarily significantly 'worse' than any other system, overall. However, I do think that an 'unrestrained' or 'unmodified' capitalist system, while it may 'work' very well for certain elements in society - perhaps even, arguably, 'most' people - is inevitably weighted against the weak and vulnerable.

It appears to me that such a system primarily values a person on the basis of their potential for production; thus if a person contributes nothing to the prosperity of society (even if through no 'fault' of their own, due to disability or sickness), they are immediately de-valued, and even seen as a drain on the nation's resources. Why, for example, do those who produce wealth in industry, reap far greater financial (and social) rewards than those caring for other human beings in the health and social care sectors?

And even within the commercial world, there is a tendency for the 'shop floor' workers to be exploited by the entrepreneurial minority higher up the power structure. Of course, this is 'justified' by the need to keep costs low in order to maximise profits - to 'reward' those who have 'risked' their own financial security(?) by their investment in the company. True, this tendency may have more (or at least as much) to do with the essentially selfish tendency of fallen human nature than any intrinsic fault in the system (even within a socialist/communist regime, there are always some who are 'more equal than other'!). However, I do feel there is a clear and urgent need for such exploitative tendencies to be limited and controlled, so that any benefits to be gained from the system are equitably shared among all layers of society, and to avoid any element becoming inextricably condemned to a de-valued and deprived existence.

When we start looking at the global economy, rather than that of any one nation, the potential for exploitation becomes far greater, when the source of production is so far removed from the decison-making structures of corporate management - and outside the legislative reach of the local institutions to which they are ordinarily accountable. (For example you don't have to pay you Malaysian or Korean workforce a statutory minimum wage, or fulfil all the costly requirements of Western health and safety legislation!)

Anthony

 

[coastie]

Your arguments are well delivered but look at the track record of all other systems. Capitalism has the best track record. The great thing about capitalism is that there is room to make adjustments when something isn't working quite right.

Also, the weak and vulnerable are very different than the immature and lazy. They are the one's who don't do well. There are prgrams and systems in place in most capitalist economy to take care of the weak and vulnerable.

It is rare, and also a crime for a weak and vulnerable person to be left alone and unable to take care of themselves. The lazy people do it to themselves out of ignorance.

 

[TruelightUK]

Originally posted by coastie
Capitalism has the best track record.

As I say, I'm not necessarily implying that any other system is 'better' - but undoubtedly capitalism has its 'victims' as well as its 'winners'.

The great thing about capitalism is that there is room to make adjustments when something isn't working quite right.

True. (And other systems don't?) But the initial argument was about pure, unadulterated capitalism.

In effect, however, I think very often all these changes do are mover the problems on elsewhere. In the 19th century the forces of capitalism created massive suffering and deprivation among the urbanised poor of this country in order to fuel the ever-growing industrial economy. Gradually laws were passed to counter these negative effects - the health and safety, limitation of child labour, housing and environmental health regulations, social security systems etc. Which forced up costs, and reduced profits. so what has happened? Gradually multi-national corp[orations have shifted their production the Third World countries, where they are free to exploit the labour force and create conditions as grim as anything Dickesn describes in his socially critical novels. (And any criticism is about as warmly received by the vested interests as were those of the Victorian commentators!)

Also, the weak and vulnerable are very different than the immature and lazy. They are the one's who don't do well.

Here we are returning to the Victorian concepts of the 'deserving' and 'un-deserving' poor! Obviously I do not deny that there are some who simply choose not to work and provide for themselves - but I would question how real a choice that is for many people. Is immaturity now a sin? Or hopelessness and despair?

There are prgrams and systems in place in most capitalist economy to take care of the weak and vulnerable

Of course there are - for most capitalist economies are also democratic, and could not survive the public backlash of totally neglecting such folk. Yet how effective and 'affirming' those programmes are is open to question. (I work within the social care sector, and I am very much aware of the economic forces which restrict the kind of help and support people are given, despite the lip service paid to their rights to equal opportunities etc.)

It is ... a crime for a weak and vulnerable person to be left alone and unable to take care of themselves.

Yet there are those in this thread who seem to be saying that governments have no right (or certainly no obligation) to intervene in such a way. Such help should come from strictly voluntary acts of chrarity, and not be extorted from the purses of the rich against their will.

The lazy people do it to themselves out of ignorance.

But if they are 'ignorant', then are they truly to be 'blamed' for the situation they find themselves in?


I freely admit that this is no simple black and white issue. There are, undoubtedly, some merits to the kind of
'liberalised capitalism' we see today. And I am not at all opposed to the notion of people having the opportunity to better themselves and be rewarded for their efforts - so long as this is not at the expense of others whose backs they stand on as they prise themselves out of the pit! But let us not be blind to the system's shortcomings and abuses, or view it as the panacea for every ill - when actually it may just be the cause of some of them!

Anthony

 

[Brimshack]

Capitalism is not equivalent to Free Market structures and most of the so-called communist countries have been simply different (less efficient) forms of capitalism.

In any event, I find most of the debates about which system is more just and fair a bit too abstract. How can people talk about it like it's just a matter of working out the rules within a single nation? So many of these debates typically ignore the historical development of relations between poor countries and developed nations. It does no good to give the right to get wealthy to people living in a small country where the resources (land, harbors, etc.) are already tied up by a small elite and foreign companies (e.g. United Fruits near monopoly on Guatemala at the mid-century mark). If practical circumstances prevent the bulk of a population from ammassing capital, then free market values will do them no good, though such economic values often provide local elites and core nations with enough leverage to wreak havok on the landless poor. To suggest that capitalism is the answer to the problems in underdeveloped countries ignores the role that capitalism has already played in causing so much of the 3rd world poverty that exists today.

 

[Kiwi]

Capitalism, like socialism, looks good in theory and often doesn't work in practise, because of a little thing called greed. Human beings are greedy by nature and no matter what system they in they are trying to get the most out of it for themselves. There are some good points to democratic socialism. This is practised in a lot of european countries, like Germany, France and Holland, and these countries have excellent economies. For instance in Holland the government controls the opening time of the shops. This is to protect the little family owned shops who can't afford to stay open 24 hours a day, unlike the big supermarket down the road. They know that if all the small shop owners go out of business they will not have any money to spend in the big supermarket down the road, or in any other shop and these people would end up on welfare, so in this way they are protecting the small shop owner and the economy at the same time.

 

[TruelightUK]

Originally posted by Brimshack
It does no good to give the right to get wealthy to people living in a small country where the resources (land, harbors, etc.) are already tied up by a small elite and foreign companies (e.g. United Fruits near monopoly on Guatemala at the mid-century mark). If practical circumstances prevent the bulk of a population from ammassing capital, then free market values will do them no good, though such economic values often provide local elites and core nations with enough leverage to wreak havok on the landless poor.

An excellent post, Brimshack, with some very valid and relevant points; at last I am not a lone voice here! Maybe you'd also like to contribute to the 'Jubilee' and 'Global Village' threads?

Anthony

 

[coastie]

OKay, I concede that a capitalistic Government is not the best way for a small nation to start. In fact communism might actually be a lot easier as long as there is a nation that is will to pour some money into the nations infant economy and government.

Communism isn't sustainable over a long period of time though. Look at Cuba, when Russia stopped throwing money into their economy, they just kind of shriveled up.

Hoever, in a natin where all everyone wants is food and clothes and the basic neccessities, perhaps communism is the answer. When that nation has developed, it will be time for a transition into capitalism. This can be done by putting a privately industry here and there until finally the government isn't the only entity with any influence on the economy of the nation.

The reason I say that communism has it's boundaries is because of what happened in the USSR. They were very successful as far as communist nations are concerned. However, they limited their own industry. They just kept on building tanks and weapons even though they didn't have enough people to operate them. They just kept on manufacturing this sort of thing because "What the heck, the governments paying for it right" and after a while these manufactured goods begin to lose their value and the small satelite nations won't pay high prices in order to sustain the USSR's economy since the USSR has been just giving them things up until now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but communism isn't the most sustainable system, as a matter of fact, I believe that it inherently destroys itself. While modified-capitalism evolves with the needs of the society. But then again I guess that good be said for many systems.

Zach

 

[Kiwi]

And lets not forget that an integrel part of capitalism is consumerism which means for a country to continue to be prosperous it means people have to keep buying things. Unfortunatly in the west people have hardly any personal savings left. It is estimated that college students come out of university with an average of US$8,000 credit card debt plus student loans on top of that. We can only go along on this system of continual debt for so long before we have to stop buying things, and then the economy goes down. My university professor for my world issues paper reckons by the end of the century China will be next world power, with Japan following close behind, because they (Japan) have a saving rate of over 20% of their personal wealth. I find it funny how people associate progress with how much stuff you own, eg. We must be more progressive than those people in Africa because we drive cars and have air conditioning. Then we go to those countries and say 'hey, to be progressive you need to drive cars and consume our products, like Coke and Nike shoes'. Which of course they don't need because they have been fine for many years without these things. And the environment cannot support everyone using air conditioning or driving cars.

 

[Brimshack]

I would reiterate that most of the so-called communistic states weren't. They never gave up the profit motive, and their government administration effectively functioned as a bourgeoisie in itself. What the failure of soviet communism demonstrates is that centralized capitalism is a remarkably inneficient system. Whether or not relatvely freemarket based forms of Capitalism will be sustainable over the long haul is a serious question.

As far as Cuba goes, they are still better off economically than they were as a client-state of the U.S. It's worth remembering that they had already been reduced to a periphery of the U.S. economy long before Castro. If you mostly produce coffee, banannas, and tobacco, you HAVE to trade with somebody. So, our trade embargo has had a significant effect, and without Russuia, yes they have suffered significantly. Actually their real economy, btw, is quite capitalist. That's because their real economy is black market sales. Almost no-one in that country could survive on the government allocations, so they all smuggle and deal under the table. It's amazing how much of that economy is off the books.

But of course this too illustrates the futility of discussing these issues in the abstract. People always seem to approach it as though we were laying down the rules for a board game, but of course we never have the luxury of starting from scratch.

I don't know about starting with communism and then shifting to capitalism, though land reform has certainly been necessary in large parts of Latin America, as a precondition for creating anykind of sustainable economy (Capitalist or otherwise). Of course that always looks like Comunism when in fact it often has more to do with nationalism. The whole logic of the Cold War has skewed so many attemts to achieve economic independence that its very sad to talk about some of these examples.

It's too late, but I think in many of these cases, people would have been better off keeping their old localized subsistence economies. When countries like the U.S. (or Russia) show up and say we wanna help, we usually just end up taking their stuff.

 

[MARANATHA2002]

Questions: 1. What economic system has generated more charitable funding?
2. What country has given the most to charitable causes?
3. What country has given the most in economic aid?
4. What was the economic system for the country in questions 3 & 4?

 

[Brimshack]

Charity is not adequate compensation for the deliberate destruction of communities around the world. Our economic aid is often used as a negotiating tool for which foreign countries must pay in other ways (Cf. Europe in the wake of WWI or third world countries purchasing HYV crops). And finally, our system is capitalistic, but it is not and has never been a pure system of capitalism.

Economic history is not a morality tale. If you are looking for heroes you won't find them without distorting the facts beyond belief. And if you think Capitalism is an unqualified success story, then you aren't looking very closely at the cost that others pay for our success.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Brimshack

So, our trade embargo has had a significant effect.

Indeed. While I think communism is inherently doomed on any large scale, I think Cuba is a *HORRIBLE* example, because it's impossible to imagine an economic system other than "God gives us all everything we want all the time" which would do well in their circumstances.

The Jews used that system for a while, and it was apparently quite successful. I've always wanted to try it.

 

[Brimshack]

Communism is just a red herring.

 

[MARANATHA2002]

You may have a point with economic aid. My point is that the system we have, and you can classify it as whatever type of capitalism you like, Americans give more to charities than any of the other country, and our capitalistic system is the reason why. The problems that some of you are having, should be directed at international banking, and their globalistic agendas. Peace, but not yet.