Christian Capitalists...

[Ody]

Christian communists trace the origins of their practice to the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles at chapter 2 and verses 42, 44, and 45:

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship ... 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
​

So...

The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version​

Basically I'm having trouble about why Christians are so generally Capitalistic in America..
​

 

[Gentoo]

Basically I'm having trouble about why Christians are so generally Capitalistic in America..

The only thing I can honestly think of is, "That's the American way!" And also the 'you're either with us or against us' mindset against Communism.

 

[RevOxley_501]

<communist

 

[RevOxley_501]

i will expound...


I generally garner my Communist beliefs on the same verse and thought pattern.Though Communism, as guided by the Manifesto isnt quite the same as what we are discussing, the ideaologies are much the same.

to me, it is a shame that Christianity is so darn capitalist

 

[michel]

So...

Basically I'm having trouble about why Christians are so generally Capitalistic in America..
[/indent]

I think you're looking at this from the wrong direction......

America is a Capitalist "democracy" (more like theocratic semi-dictatorship)...; most Americans are (for some reason) Catholic, Therefore Christians in America are capitalists...........

 

[RevOxley_501]

haha,,,

funniest post evar

 

[Mathematician]

She disagrees.

 

[Faminedynasty]

There is no conceivable justification for it in the Bible, but you can find super-rich "christians" all over american television preaching that a person's worth can be found by looking at their bank account. Oh and investment preachers. The scheme is this: you give them money for their network and Jesus will pay you back in the form of miracles, including more money! You can't make the check right out to Jesus due to a technicality, but I'm sure they get it to him.

 

[Booko]

Just for fun, Alan, take a look at the traditions concerning usury throughout Christian history.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So...

Basically I'm having trouble about why Christians are so generally Capitalistic in America..
​

Easy, communism doesn't work except on a very limited scale. When the first pilgrims came to Massachusetts, they compiled their crops in common--and they were starving. Then each family was allowed to have a separate plot from which they could grow crops for themselves. Voila, the capitalist success story is history. Motivation, communism's blind spot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Easy, communism doesn't work except on a very limited scale. When the first pilgrims came to Massachusetts, they compiled their crops in common--and they were starving. Then each family was allowed to have a separate plot from which they could grow crops for themselves. Voila, the capitalist success story is history. Motivation, communism's blind spot.

We should note that Xian capitalists here also created the welfare state, which aims for some of the goals of communism, but does a better job. This is often missed due to political polarization, which stereotypes Xians as fundamentalists who oppose the welfare state.

 

[metis]

Easy, communism doesn't work except on a very limited scale. When the first pilgrims came to Massachusetts, they compiled their crops in common--and they were starving. Then each family was allowed to have a separate plot from which they could grow crops for themselves. Voila, the capitalist success story is history. Motivation, communism's blind spot.

Communism can and has worked, but so much depends on how it's set up. The Soviet approach was a disaster, but the Chinese went from a nation whereas starvation was a major problem to a country that now exports food and is likely to pass us up by 2020.

What they did different that what the Soviets did was to actually do what Marx said should be done, namely put more sovereignty into the hands of local workers and let them compete with other communes, which is a form of capitalism, of course. Marx did not want "big government", with the exception of the transitional stage of taking property and power away from the wealthy, who had an iron-clad lock on it back in the 1700-1800's. The next stage was to have more power at local levels with competition being involved. His hope was that eventually all national governments could be done away with.

 

[Revoltingest]

Communism can and has worked, but so much depends on how it's set up. The Soviet approach was a disaster, but the Chinese went from a nation whereas starvation was a major problem to a country that now exports food and is likely to pass us up by 2020.

This was only after they adopted capitalism.
Prior to that, they still had mass starvation.
Great Chinese Famine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.....the period in the People's Republic of China between the years 1958 and 1961 characterized by widespread famine. Drought, poor weather, and the policies of the Communist Party of China contributed to the famine, although the relative weights of the contributions are disputed due to the Great Leap Forward.

According to government statistics, there were 15 million excess deaths in this period.[1] Unofficial estimates vary, but scholars have estimated the number of famine victims to be between 20 and 43 million.[2] Historian Frank Dikötter, having been granted special access to Chinese archival materials, estimates that there were at least 45 million premature deaths from 1958 to 1962.[3][4]

 

[Wirey]

Rev is right. All of the big gains in Chinese society occurred after they loosened up and adopted more capitalistic methods for their economy.

 

[Politesse]

Cognitive dissonance.

There's also the Prosperity Gospel crowd, for those who care enough to find a theological justification. And they can, I think; there are plenty of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures which imply that being wealthy isn't a problem as long as you spread it around a bit, and those are now the "Old Testament", which conservatives tend to prefer to the new anyway, as they want a book of laws and the gospels don't provide many.

But really, I think most people just don't think of the two things as related. "Religion" lives in a little box on Sunday mornings, the rat race is what you do for real.

 

[Politesse]

Incidentally, I think it's funny when Americans insist that China "isn't really Communist", given that Americans also have a tendency to complain about the least whiff of socialist reform in their own government. China certainly isn't a laissez-faire market. Reforms notwithstanding, their system is still overtly Leninist, and intentionally so; they "allow" semi-private enterprise because it generally benefits everyone, but they haven't actually relinquished control over any of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Incidentally, I think it's funny when Americans insist that China "isn't really Communist", given that Americans also have a tendency to complain about the least whiff of socialist reform in their own government. China certainly isn't a laissez-faire market. Reforms notwithstanding, their system is still overtly Leninist, and intentionally so; they "allow" semi-private enterprise because it generally benefits everyone, but they haven't actually relinquished control over any of it.

People I know who do business there say otherwise. It's an amazingly "wild west" economic environment....provided one doesn't run afoul of the authorities.

 

[Stevicus]

Communism can and has worked, but so much depends on how it's set up. The Soviet approach was a disaster, but the Chinese went from a nation whereas starvation was a major problem to a country that now exports food and is likely to pass us up by 2020.

What they did different that what the Soviets did was to actually do what Marx said should be done, namely put more sovereignty into the hands of local workers and let them compete with other communes, which is a form of capitalism, of course. Marx did not want "big government", with the exception of the transitional stage of taking property and power away from the wealthy, who had an iron-clad lock on it back in the 1700-1800's. The next stage was to have more power at local levels with competition being involved. His hope was that eventually all national governments could be done away with.

In regards to Russia and China, one thing that I would note is that, for the most part, communism actually improved the state of affairs in both countries. Pre-revolutionary Tsarist Russia was pretty much a disaster already, and pre-revolutionary China was in even worse shape. I think the early Bolsheviks actually wanted to put power in the hands of the local "soviets," which is the Russian word for "council." On paper, that's how it was supposed to work, but it didn't turn out that way in practice. The organizational structure was weak and didn't really have any effective system of checks and balances to prevent corruption, abuses, or the usurpation of absolute power.

To be sure, the Soviets did fare better than their Tsarist predecessors when comparing how they did against the Germans in WW2 as opposed to WW1. They also gave the West a good run for our money during the Cold War. That may have been their biggest mistake - and ours, too, since both sides were madly preparing for a war that neither really had any desire to fight nor any plan to fight. Yet both sides were worried that the other would attack if they ever let their guard down. In addition, there was a propaganda/ideological battle in play, as both sides argued the merits of capitalism vs. communism as if missionaries spreading their religious views. That's one thing I've noticed that both factions had in common, is that both were ideologically rigid and inflexible. That's what led to the Soviets' undoing, and it will likely lead to the West's undoing as well.

In contrast, the Chinese have shown some flexibility, abandoning previous ideas that didn't work for them and taking what they see as the more favorable aspects of both systems and applying them in a practical and reasonably successful manner. Just as we were able to turn the Sino-Soviet schism to our short-term advantage, China was working more for long-term advantage.

 

[metis]

Rev is right. All of the big gains in Chinese society occurred after they loosened up and adopted more capitalistic methods for their economy.

Which is what Marx wanted to eventually have happen, and the proof that it can work is that it has worked in China.

The problem that we constantly run across is that so many simply never read Marx, thus allowing themselves to believe that what took place in Russia was what Marx envisioned. Russia took the first step in regards to what Marx taught, nationalizing industry and large farms (he actually preferred to have this happen democratically, but he well knew that this was not likely to happen in many countries), but the leaders would not allow going to the next step, quite possibly because they may have been worried about losing control of the whole ball of wax. This top-down approach was terribly inefficient, plus they didn't provide incentive for hard work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which is what Marx wanted to eventually have happen, and the proof that it can work is that it has worked in China.

So Marx envisioned rampant capitalism replacing socialism?
And since it worked in China, then this exemplifies a success fro Marxism?