Without factory and business owners who would run the businesses and pay the
wages of workers?
We live in a democracy not a communist society. Russian communism failed miserably.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Capitalism Adharmic?
- Thread starter wizanda
- Start date
Without factory and business owners who would run the businesses and pay the
wages of workers?
We live in a democracy not a communist society. Russian communism failed miserably.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Valid rebuttals. I stand corrected.
I would restate that the idea of capitalism is not, in and of itself, wicked
But in the wielding of this idea, temperance has been ... compromised.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
You forget socialism and anarchism; where the people, themselves, would run the businesses and the profits be split among the workers.
Novel idea; but I don't see how it could work or how we could transfer to such an economic system or how the problems arising from such a system would be any more palpable than the problems we have now.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
This shows your point of view that is utterly incorrect. Managing a business is a skill; and the larger the business, the more skill and knowledge are required to do so. Business owners and managers often work very, very hard and put in 12-18 hours per day making their business work. You look at the minute few who were born into money and don't have to do anything but to hire someone else to do all the work; and assume that this is the way it always is? You look at a manager on the phone or sitting behind the desk and assume he's not doing anything worthwhile? While I agree that there are issues that need to be resolved in our capitalist economic structure, this delusion you seem to be portraying about what it means to be an owner/the one on top ... is ... well ... ludicrous.
I recognize the merits of free enterprise, private initiative and profit-making for economic growth...but I have a hard time understanding how you can regard an economic system created in the Early Modern Era after the displacement of mercantilism to be "natural" to the human species.
Capitalism is not in any sense "natural". It is certainly better than Communism but neither are natural.
Commerce and trade having always been with us. But not capitalism, which is an an economic system with an identifiable historic genesis. To claim it is somehow "innate" to human nature is akin to the Soviet Union's Marxian delusions about the inevitability of proletarian revolution. Human history is not so fatally self-deterministic or directed by an inner, guiding meta-narrative that must inevitably end with either liberal capitalism or a worker's revolution.
Capitalism, like socialism, had a beginning - growing out of the collapse of feudal economics in the late middle ages and the seventeenth century mercantilism of the European empires.
I feel that Pope St. John Paul II got closer to the truth in his 1987 encyclical on economics:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html
(20) In the West there exists a system which is historically inspired by the principles of the liberal capitalism which developed with industrialization during the last century. In the East there exists a system inspired by the Marxist collectivism which sprang from an interpretation of the condition of the proletarian classes made in the light of a particular reading of history. Each of the two ideologies, on the basis of two very different visions of man and of his freedom and social role, has proposed and still promotes, on the economic level, antithetical forms of the organization of labor and of the structures of ownership, especially with regard to the so-called means of production...
(21) This happens with particularly negative effects in the international relations which concern the developing countries. For as we know the tension between East and West is not in itself an opposition between two different levels of development but rather between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction. This opposition is transferred to the developing countries themselves, and thus helps to widen the gap already existing on the economic level between North and South and which results from the distance between the two worlds: the more developed one and the less developed one.
This is one of the reasons why the Church's social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism.
22. In the light of these considerations, we easily arrive at a clearer picture of the last twenty years and a better understanding of the conflicts in the northern hemisphere, namely between East and West, as an important cause of the retardation or stagnation of the South. The developing countries, instead of becoming autonomous nations concerned with their own progress towards a just sharing in the goods and services meant for all, become parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel. This is often true also in the field of social communications, which, being run by centers mostly in the northern hemisphere, do not always give due consideration to the priorities and problems of such countries or respect their cultural make-up. They frequently impose a distorted vision of life and of man and thus fail to respond to the demands of true development.
Each of the two blocs harbors in its own way a tendency towards imperialism, as it is usually called, or towards forms of new- colonialism: an easy temptation to which they frequently succumb, as history, including recent history, teaches.
... This super-development, which consists in an excessive availability of every kind of material goods for the benefit of certain social groups, easily makes people slaves of "possession" and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement of the things already owned with others still better. This is the so-called civilization of consumption" or "consumerism ," which involves so much "throwing-away" and "waste." An object already owned but now superseded by something better is discarded, with no thought of its possible lasting value in itself, nor of some other human being who is poorer.
Of course, the difference between "being" and "having," the danger inherent in a mere multiplication or replacement of things possessed compared to the value of "being," need not turn into a contradiction. One of the greatest injustices in the contemporary world consists precisely in this: that the ones who possess much are relatively few and those who possess almost nothing are many. It is the injustice of the poor distribution of the goods and services originally intended for all...
(41) Following the example of my predecessors, I must repeat that whatever affects the dignity of individuals and peoples, such as authentic development, cannot be reduced to a "technical" problem. If reduced in this way, development would be emptied of its true content, and this would be an act of betrayal of the individuals and peoples whom development is meant to serve.
The Church's social doctrine is not a "third way" between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own…It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all…
In this consists the difference between sociopolitical analysis and formal reference to "sin" and the "structures of sin."...
37: This general analysis, which is religious in nature, can be supplemented by a number of particular considerations to demonstrate that among the actions and attitudes opposed to the will of God, the good of neighbor and the "structures" created by them, two are very typical: on the one hand, the all-consuming desire for profit, and on the other, the thirst for power, with the intention of imposing one's will upon others.
In order to characterize better each of these attitudes, one can add the expression: "at any price." In other words, we are faced with the absolutizing of human attitudes with all its possible consequences.
Since these attitudes can exist independently of each other, they can be separated; however in today's world both are indissolubly united, with one or the other predominating
In order to characterize better each of these attitudes, one can add the expression: "at any price." In other words, we are faced with the absolutizing of human attitudes with all its possible consequences.
Since these attitudes can exist independently of each other, they can be separated; however in today's world both are indissolubly united, with one or the other predominating.
(21) This happens with particularly negative effects in the international relations which concern the developing countries. For as we know the tension between East and West is not in itself an opposition between two different levels of development but rather between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction. This opposition is transferred to the developing countries themselves, and thus helps to widen the gap already existing on the economic level between North and South and which results from the distance between the two worlds: the more developed one and the less developed one.
This is one of the reasons why the Church's social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism.
22. In the light of these considerations, we easily arrive at a clearer picture of the last twenty years and a better understanding of the conflicts in the northern hemisphere, namely between East and West, as an important cause of the retardation or stagnation of the South. The developing countries, instead of becoming autonomous nations concerned with their own progress towards a just sharing in the goods and services meant for all, become parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel. This is often true also in the field of social communications, which, being run by centers mostly in the northern hemisphere, do not always give due consideration to the priorities and problems of such countries or respect their cultural make-up. They frequently impose a distorted vision of life and of man and thus fail to respond to the demands of true development.
Each of the two blocs harbors in its own way a tendency towards imperialism, as it is usually called, or towards forms of new- colonialism: an easy temptation to which they frequently succumb, as history, including recent history, teaches.
... This super-development, which consists in an excessive availability of every kind of material goods for the benefit of certain social groups, easily makes people slaves of "possession" and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement of the things already owned with others still better. This is the so-called civilization of consumption" or "consumerism ," which involves so much "throwing-away" and "waste." An object already owned but now superseded by something better is discarded, with no thought of its possible lasting value in itself, nor of some other human being who is poorer.
Of course, the difference between "being" and "having," the danger inherent in a mere multiplication or replacement of things possessed compared to the value of "being," need not turn into a contradiction. One of the greatest injustices in the contemporary world consists precisely in this: that the ones who possess much are relatively few and those who possess almost nothing are many. It is the injustice of the poor distribution of the goods and services originally intended for all...
(41) Following the example of my predecessors, I must repeat that whatever affects the dignity of individuals and peoples, such as authentic development, cannot be reduced to a "technical" problem. If reduced in this way, development would be emptied of its true content, and this would be an act of betrayal of the individuals and peoples whom development is meant to serve.
The Church's social doctrine is not a "third way" between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own…It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all…
In this consists the difference between sociopolitical analysis and formal reference to "sin" and the "structures of sin."...
37: This general analysis, which is religious in nature, can be supplemented by a number of particular considerations to demonstrate that among the actions and attitudes opposed to the will of God, the good of neighbor and the "structures" created by them, two are very typical: on the one hand, the all-consuming desire for profit, and on the other, the thirst for power, with the intention of imposing one's will upon others.
In order to characterize better each of these attitudes, one can add the expression: "at any price." In other words, we are faced with the absolutizing of human attitudes with all its possible consequences.
Since these attitudes can exist independently of each other, they can be separated; however in today's world both are indissolubly united, with one or the other predominating
In order to characterize better each of these attitudes, one can add the expression: "at any price." In other words, we are faced with the absolutizing of human attitudes with all its possible consequences.
Since these attitudes can exist independently of each other, they can be separated; however in today's world both are indissolubly united, with one or the other predominating.
Last edited:
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Because, you went after Capitalism as if saying that "only in a capitalist society" do the few work their backs off to profit for the few. This notion is incorrect.
Right. And in human nature, a few will become dominate and will reap more profit than the remainder. This is unavoidable. This is inevitable.
Right. And in human nature, a few will become dominate. A few will garner more "support" through various means of manipulation, intimidation, etc. It is unavoidable. It is the way of the world.
No. Communism, in its most basal form, is where the government controls the wealth. If the government is democratic in nature, then yes, in that society, democracy is inherent in communism If the government, however, is not democratic, then communism is not inherent to the communism. The few sitting at the top of the heap decides where things go, who gets what, and how much. When the government gets their hands on such power: well, to quote Palpatine from Star Wars: "Those who have power are afraid to lose it". Democracy and Communism go hand in hand only when the government is democratic.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
"Honest wages for honest work".
I will be untracking after this as I will become ... strident ... in my criticisms.
Look, I'm sorry you and I are poor and can't afford crap. But at the end of the day, an individual is gambling everything ... including the future of those under his care (such as his children's education and future) that he can make this business work. If a business fails, the owners have lost everything. Everything. And so has his children. It takes millions ... millions ... of dollars to start a business. Motels, convenience stores; and some business do take less startup capital than others, to be sure; but generally have less of an earning potential.
Now; let's assume I win the lottery and obtain 2 million. After taxes, that leaves me about 1 million. Here, I now have a future; a home; ability to care for children; something to leave behind and enhance the future of those I care about; through education and a good start. Whow, how cool would that be?
Yet, I gamble it all ... every bit of it ... invest all of it and put myself an additional $200,000 in debt to open a truck stop .... and I hire you do perform a certain duty ... All that you have on the line is a job ... something that, with the economy conditions taken into consideration, you can replace. My 2.2 million can't be reasonably replaced. I have risked everything. Everything. Including the future of nieces, nephew, cousins, which I now have the ability to provide a future for where their parents can not. And this, even without the thought that I may one day have children of my own ... and the future of my children is at stake, gambling on the future of this business.
And you would come at me like you are entitled to a share of my profits when you have risked nothing but time?
Take a hike with that. You are not entitled. I am not entitled. We are entitled to nothing in this world; save basic human rights and basic human dignity.
I know this isn't addressed to me but...I for one am a corporate lawyer...I'm not sure we can qualify as poor folk
So this statement might not be universal for those of us posting here. Our respective views on the merits and demerits of capitalism are not necessarily informed by our present social statuses and/or wealth.
Maybe it's because I see my managers constantly exhausted every day from 15 hour days. But I think you are being a little unfair to the "higher ups."
They have far more responsibility. They have more to lose and they're the ones putting in the overtime (often unpaid) to ensure their department and their team is running effectively.
When they do a good job their bosses leave them alone. If they or their team ****s up, they're the ones taking the brunt.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
I know this isn't addressed to me but...I for one am a corporate lawyer...I'm not sure we can qualify as poor folk
LoL, no, it was not addressed to you. Nonetheless, most of the "anti-capitlist" sentiment I hear come from the ... "economically challenged". I am ... LOL ... economically challenged ... but the family I grew up with was not. I feel that i have seen; and experienced; both sides of the equation. I'm not saying I'm special or that I'm the only one who has ... but still ...
Interestingly, my life journey has been the exact opposite of your own. I was brought up in a very economically disadvantaged family - I mean the lowest of lowest low-income, with an unemployed parent.
Life dished me lemons and I made lemonade. I know what it is like to be an economic loser by lot and an economic winner by sheer hard work.
But during my "rise" up the social ladder, if I can call it that, I became all too aware of how difficult it is in today's climate to be socially mobile. Nepotism and clientelism are rife in the present system.
So many are mired in the kind of poverty I was born into. I know something is wrong and a handsome pay-check doesn't soothe my conscience when I know that a poor, disabled person elsewhere in the country doesn't have enough money to pay for the necessary support to go to the toilet on their own with dignity.
Last edited:
Geesh.
I worked as an hourly employee in an auto factory for GREAT wages.
Some years later I worked in a different auto factory as management.
I have a foot in both worlds.
Auto workers are among the very best paid in wages and benefits are outstanding.
Lazy auto workers are protected by stupidly strong union and simply cannot be
fired for any reason.
There was even a union worked that came in the plant with a shotgun to shoot
a fellow employee and didn't get fired.
I only mention this because business owners and unions are part of our capitalist
society.
Unions have wrecked and bankrupted businesses.
Believe me I'm not against unions.
I have a friend that works for Honda as hourly.
No union.
Lunch is FREE, benefits rival those of U.A.W. employees ( this
guy ) gets a NEW FREE car every freaking year.
Then the wages that are ALWAYS within a buck of union wages.
So much for a capitalist slave what?
Capitalism seems to work quite well in the U.S.
I worked as an hourly employee in an auto factory for GREAT wages.
Some years later I worked in a different auto factory as management.
I have a foot in both worlds.
Auto workers are among the very best paid in wages and benefits are outstanding.
Lazy auto workers are protected by stupidly strong union and simply cannot be
fired for any reason.
There was even a union worked that came in the plant with a shotgun to shoot
a fellow employee and didn't get fired.
I only mention this because business owners and unions are part of our capitalist
society.
Unions have wrecked and bankrupted businesses.
Believe me I'm not against unions.
I have a friend that works for Honda as hourly.
No union.
Lunch is FREE, benefits rival those of U.A.W. employees ( this
guy ) gets a NEW FREE car every freaking year.
Then the wages that are ALWAYS within a buck of union wages.
So much for a capitalist slave what?
Capitalism seems to work quite well in the U.S.
Ohhhhh please. Cite examples of Americans in today's society being coerced into working
threatening starvation?
Listen: I watched as the government built NEW houses given to "disadvantaged"
people for FREE and FREE food and medical care.
FREE.
People on food stamps ate better than me and my kids.
How do I know that?
Because I WAS on food stamps for a short time.
I couldn't stand to be on the dole but I had to feed 3 younger children who had NO
mother.
I got off the dole in a few months.
Personal ethics you see.
I was 48 when I got a grant to go to college due to being crippled on my former job.
I earned two degrees.
I didn't have to do so but I WANTED to do so!
I have a disability retirement. A retirement NOT provided by tax payers but a retirement
I paid into out of my wages.
Well if capitalism is so rotten then get politically active and CHANGE IT.
Illegal or undocumented migrants for one.
Such people live precarious lives of de facto legal non-existence that leave them open to exploitation and abuse.
They might contribute to the societies in which they live but the government offers them little to no protection.
Some employers recruit these vulnerable people specifically for low-skilled, sub-paid work. They cannot appeal for unions to protect them from unfair wages, sub-standard working conditions or punishing hours because legally they are not citizens and yet many cannot return "home" due to war or humanitarian disaster.
They effectively inhabit a space of legal non-existence and the U.S. government does little to change it. Indeed Donald Trump plans to make their lives even worse if he becomes POTUS.
Last edited:
Walter Russell
Member
Is capitalism away from the natural order of things, and another false part of reality, that blinds us from working for the greater good?
I believe so yes.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
And that is where we disagree. I do not believe it "has" to be inherent of capitalism.
They made their conclusions based on reasons far different than the reasons of the inevitability I suggested; but I really don't want to debate each and every little point of disagreement.
Within every economic system, it is inherent that people will profit more than others. Your concept that there is an exception to this is odd to me.
It is also interesting to note that each and every one of those whom you mentioned are remembered throughout history as monsters. Those whom you mention who rose to power have blood on their hands. If these are the best examples you have of "ideological communist leaders", then it stands to reason that "ideological communist leaders" are a threat.
Nice.
I've seen businesses fail and I've seen businesses succeed; as I'm sure you have as well. Sometimes, businesses fail due to circumstances outside of one's control. Most often, businesses fail because of poor leadership and inept management. The opinion of one person who knows what they are talking about is worth more than the opinions of a dozen people who don't.
It has everything to do with this thread. I find the idea that I am entitled to a share of the profits of the convenience store I work for simply because I work there to be ludicrous. This is not intended as a slam on you. It is simply how I feel. I made an agreement: Fair wage for Honest work. I am entitled to no more than being treated fairly and to be paid as we have agreed.
Great! A point of agreement! That's a relief!
The fact that the money put forward is their money entitles them. The fact that the risk taken is their risk (dragging those under their care along with them) entitles them. As an employee, you are entitled to basic human dignity; including fair wages for honest work.
I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
People actually just don't want us talking about anti-capitalism
I'm not so sure that is true. The problem is, the anti-capitalist fails to provide a convincing model for an acceptable alternative. Mao, Lenin, Stalin and the others you mentioned are certainly not fitting alternatives.
It sounds good; but it also seems very unworkable to me. It seems like nothing more than wishful thinking. As I stated before, the opinion of one person who knows what they are talking about is worth more than 12 who don't.
Walk me through this. See, here is where the ... alternatives ... to capitalism fall apart. So choose a business, include me, and walk me through how we would go about obtaining and managing a business in your anti-capitalist system.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
What you are speaking about, imho, is nothing more than slavery, oppression and criminal behavior. Do you feel that slavery,oppression and criminal behavior is intrinsic to capitalism? If so ... Why is slavery, oppression and criminal behavior intrinsic to capitalism?