Is Capitalism Adharmic?

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

However coerces us into working by threatening us with starvation and homelessness if we don't. It isn't quite "voluntary".

I find this an empty gripe. The fact that we must work to feed and clothe ourselves is a human condition. It is simply the way that things are. Take us back to the stone age; and you will find that it takes work to find or build shelter, feed and clothe oneself. The necessity to work in order to clothe, fee and shelter ourselves is intrinsic to our existence.

 

[Walter Russell]

Since this thread is in general religious debates, I'll provide a reply grounded in theological considerations regarding "capitalism", rather than one that is purely poilitical-economic....

According to Catholic understanding of human society, the goods of the earth were, by natural law, originally ordained to be held in common as universal. God did not, from the beginning at least, institute division and privatization of property. There was no subjugation of one person to another envisioned under the primordial law of nature either. This all came about through later human artifice, chiefly on account of the fall from grace which led to original sin.

Thus, contrary to capitalist thought, private property is not "natural" as far as Catholic theology is concerned. However to avoid lawlessness, avarice and indeed violent anarchy in societies inhabited by sinful, imperfect men - private property is "necessary", so to speak and must be recognised by positive law. So despite the fact that the right to private property is not inherent in the nature of man, the state must protect it for the good of the social order.

However Catholic doctrine promotes a limited ownership, whereas capitalism endorses an absolute view of ownership.

In the absolute view of property ownership, it can only be relinquished at will i.e. by charitable giving.

Because of the Catholic teaching on the universal destination of goods, we have a somewhat different take: in cases of need all things are common property.

St. Thomas Aquinas explained in the 13th century, following in the foot steps of the Church Fathers, that whatever resources the wealthy have in excess - beyond what is necessary for their comfort - belongs "by right to the poor" such that it is not to be considered theft if the poor should use the property of the rich to satiate their hunger or need in extreme times. Had this been followed by Europeans in the 17th-early 20th centuries, I'm sure a lot of the problems underlying the French and Russian revolutions might have been mitigated, such that these catastrophes could have been avoided. Instead we had lords shooting to death starving poor men stealing the odd chicken to feed their impoverished families.

For while the Church believes that the right to property to be essential for the good of society and argues that it must be upheld, it does not see property ownership as an "absolute" right like right-wing Libertarians would, for instance. It has a social dimension, namely the common good.

Not allowing the poor to share in our goods is to "steal" from their natural law right to a share in the common goods of the earth, since natural law takes precedence over any positive law, and therefore commit mortal sin:


http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm

In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common.

I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man's needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): "It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom."

Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

​

The 'Decretals' St. Thomas mentions are of course a reference to Gratian's compilation and codification of canon law, which included this precept in it.

This provides a moral basis for a degree of redistributive taxation in a country marked by grave disparities in wealth that are in turn caused by a free market guided by 'trickle-down' economics.

Thus we find Pope Leo XIII say in his 1891 social encyclical:


http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xii...m-novarum.html

37. Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.​

I tend to agree with the way John Locke put it. Everything in its natural state is owned by all men in common until the labor of a man takes it out of its natural state, ie a rabbit in the woods in owned by all in common but when a man hunts and captures a rabbit, it becomes his through his labor which brought the rabbit out of its natural state.

 

[jeager106]

Illegal or undocumented migrants for one.

The above would rather that than live where they came from.
They are after all illegal.

 

[Vouthon]

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?

I never said it was bud

I was actually replying to another poster who had boasted that nobody was in such a baleful situation in today's America.

But there are people in the (as you correctly put it) "near-slave" conditions I described, whether or not capitalism has anything intrinsically to do with their plight.

But I do think that a system which regards profit, survival of the fittest and consumption as the overriding priorities, will inevitably lead to situations in which some (not all) of the "winnners" use their power to exploit the weak because it increases their profit margin, competitiveness and thereby ensures the enduring "survival" of the fit at the expense of the powerless.

Now, as I said earlier, market economics doesn't have to result in this. There is nothing intrinsically wicked about a market economy.

But there is an unhealthy "tendency" there that just isn't being checked precisely because the powers that be don't want to reform it.

I think the Nordic model of capitalism has much to recommend it. Many of the abuses seem to be moderately "checked".

 

[jeager106]

I tend to agree with the way John Locke put it. Everything in its natural state is owned by all men in common until the labor of a man takes it out of its natural state, ie a rabbit in the woods in owned by all in common but when a man hunts and captures a rabbit, it becomes his through his labor which brought the rabbit out of its natural state.

Well I have harvested more rabbits for food than I can begin to count.
A rabbits natural state is supper.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is capitalism away from the natural order of things, and another false part of reality, that blinds us from working for the greater good?

Capitalism is the greater good.
(You may quote me on that.)

 

[Vouthon]

For me one of the biggest problem's is not so much the nuts-and-bolts, economic evidence underpinning capitalism but the neo-liberal ideology that often comes with it...

Capitalist "ideology" assumes that human beings are fundamentally self-interested animals and that feeding this trait is ultimately beneficial to society.

Catholic social teaching, alternatively, holds that human beings are inherently social animals, relational beings or a 'gift-exchanging' species and so we are naturally disposed to work together for mutual benefit and in the pursuit of the common good rather than individual welfare at the expense of other people.

Rugged individualism, as is rife in modern Western civilization, could not have worked in a hunter-gatherer society in which everybody had to "muck in" to keep the tribe alive. We have, by contrast, become horribly 'atomized' today. Loneliness is reaching pandemic levels. We are ever more interconnected through globalization of trade and yet never have we been more isolated before.

The anthropology of capitalism - of enlightened self-interest - is questionable to me and in need of correction. Freedom to consume is just another way of talking about enslavement to consumption. A "consumer's freedom" is entirely conditioned by the principle of consumption and therefore represents a notion of freedom that is either purely ironic or quite absurd.

How can an ideology which gets its understanding of human nature and desires so fundamentally wrong be "ideal" in any way or in that wise the last word in economics?

We can do better than that.

It is also crucial to distinguish market economies from capitalism. I support a market economy, perhaps along the lines of "social market economies", as in Germany and the Nordic model as well, although I am wary of the finance turbo-capitalism and free market fundamentalism which is all-pervasive in our societies.

A market economy is natural, free trade among nations is desirable (I abhor protectionist tariffs and barriers to trade)....but unfettered finance capitalism? No, they are not synonymous.

Capitalism is not a uniform ideology like Marxism. It has various meanings and degrees, even from person-to-person which is why the church speaks of the "practice of capitalism" rather than any particular species of it, since there are so many.

For example, "social market economies" such as the one in Germany have an element of capitalism but it is clearly very different from the US model and in my humble opinion more in tune with the ideals of Catholic social teaching.

In itself a free market is obviously a more desirable alternative to one that is wholly subordinate to the state, however a totally free market without any restraints or little restraints and unfettered competition for profit is hardly the most moral system man can produce. In fact its the reason we had socialism at all, as an unnatural reaction to the unnatural evil of laissez-faire capitalism, except that the proposed cure (socialism) turned out to be a worse cancer than the original ailment (liberal/laissez-faire capitalism) because it was a purely materialistic alternative to a materialistic evil.

By itself a totally unfettered market cannot procure social justice, if left to the mere natural whims and outcomes of profit-driven competition between individuals. It is indeed amoral with a capacity to become completely immoral in the wrong hands.

Rather morality should be infused at the heart of our economics. Economics is not a value-free science and cannot be allowed to be reduced to such because it involves human dignity and human lives/livelihoods.

 

[Revoltingest]

You forget socialism and anarchism; where the people, themselves, would run the businesses and the profits be split among the workers.

Most people are far below average in ambition, education & intelligence.
Companies work best with a stern but benevolent dictator who listens.

 

[jeager106]

Not working for a capitalist businessman though. Initially humans only had to work in a hunter gatherer fashion.

So you would rather go back to that system?
You would quickly starve to death.


I agree it is intrinsic. I just find it silly to talk about how voluntary it is unless one is referring to some sort of major welfare state.

The U.S. IS a major welfare state.
Total number of Americans on welfare 110,489,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps 41,700,000
Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 10,200,000
Percent of the US population on welfare 35.4 %
Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131,900,000,000

That is BILLION dollars.

There is much more available on the web if you'd care to educate yourself.

 

[Walter Russell]

There is no exception I believe exists. Some people will profit more than others under communism because they work more.


Remembered throughout history by the people who ideologically oppose them. I do not defend Mao or Stalin, I was bringing them up to show you that your idea of what communism was contradicted communist leaders and theorists alike. The definitions you were operating under were reactionary ones created by the right wing.

Marx, Lenin and Engels are remembered as monsters? Like I understand Lenin because for some reason the west thinks he's a dictator (which he wasn't) and that he was a mass murder (which once again, is mostly right wing buzzwords.) However, Marx and Engels? All they did was theorize a cooperative economy. They weren't state leaders and never had the power to commit what you would consider a monstrous act.
I find it interesting you specify "each and every one". Please dissect this.

If you need other communists who are less "monsters" how about Emma Goldman and Che Guevara?
You bringing up them being "monsters" doesn't actually refute anything I said about you not understanding communism.


I agree that Stalinist and Maoist leaders should be repressed. However claiming that communist leaders are a threat solely because of those two I find that a case of correlation=causation we don't need.

However they aren't even representative of the entire statist branch of communism and leaves out left communism, anarchism and many other socialist ideologies.



So let's teach the dozen people who don't know what they are talking about what they should know. Seems like that would make things a lot better.
If the boss was clearly better at organizing the workplace the workers could let him make some major decisions by democratically deciding so and not giving him full control over the workplace.


Indeed, it would be unfair for you to suddenly demand that.
However I find the idea that bosses are entitled to a system which gives them control of others labour not treating people fairly.



I hardly see how this defends the system though.



Well if you think so then here are a bunch of others you might want to look into: Syndicalism, Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Democratic confederalism, Mutualism, market socialism, republican socialism, ... need I go on?

Capitalists aren't exactly listening.


The capitalist concept of "business" would not exist. The workers would come in to the workplace, produce what they wanted, then collectively or individually decide on what to do with the produce (depending on what system it was).

Irreguardless of the opinions related to the above metioned communist leaders, there have been studies that show the psychological profiles of people that gravitate to the top of the corporate and political ladder often are not the kind of people who should hold such absolute power over a nation of people.

You would first need that utopian society already in place in order to produce such mindful leadership. Its not the other way around. In other words you will never produce a utopian society by giving unlimited authority to a dictatorial government when the chances are highly likely if not inevitable that they will abuse that power.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I agree that Stalinist and Maoist leaders should be repressed. However claiming that communist leaders are a threat solely because of those two I find that a case of correlation=causation we don't need.

However they aren't even representative of the entire statist branch of communism and leaves out left communism, anarchism and many other socialist ideologies.

OK

So let's teach the dozen people who don't know what they are talking about what they should know. Seems like that would make things a lot better.

OK. Sounds good.

If the boss was clearly better at organizing the workplace the workers could let him make some major decisions by democratically deciding so and not giving him full control over the workplace.

This is one example out of many of the "inevitability of an individual or group rising to the top". We have democratically elected ... a boss.

However I find the idea that bosses are entitled to a system which gives them control of others labour not treating people fairly.

Your frustration is noted. As I have often said, "I work to pay bills". I'd like to have better. But I do not see myself as a "victim of the system". I see this as simply the way that things are. Regardless of what system I exist, I have to work to clothe, feed and house myself. So if I defer to or "volunteer" or "sell" my work to a capitalist who owns a C store; or defer to the voice of the majority of a group and put in my fair share of effort in exchange for a portion of the goods, the end result remains the same: I work and get paid.

I live in an "at will" state. While imperfect, it is fair. My "boss" has only the control that I allow him to have. I can, at any time, decide that my boss is not treating me fairly; or that the conditions of employment have changed beyond my satisfaction; and I can walk out the door. The "system" does not give this boss "control over mu labor". I give my boss "control over my labor"; and only for as long as it benefits me. In walking into the place of employment, we reached an agreement; What my duties were, what my wages would be, etc. If I feel that I would be happier somewhere else, I can then "rent" or "sell" my labor/knowledge/experience to another boss. In short, I am not a slave; so I can't connect to what you are saying. I am in charge of my life and I have a lot of control over who I will work for, when, and under what conditions.

So I fail to see that the worker ... like me ... is a "victim of the system" or that I'm being "treated unfairly" by my conscious, informed, consensual decision to make an agreement and exchange my honest labor for fair pay.

I don't get it.

The capitalist concept of "business" would not exist. The workers would come in to the workplace, produce what they wanted, then collectively or individually decide on what to do with the produce (depending on what system it was).

What are we producing, for cryin' out loud? See, this is where discussions of this nature just seem to fall apart. Give me a "for instance". What are we producing? How many of us are there? Break it down. Make it real. If all we can speak of are generalizations and ideals without putting forth specific examples and working models, then how can we discuss this further?

 

[jeager106]

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet

 

[Aupmanyav]

My first post in the topic. In Hinduism, it is not - though there are conditions applied. The profit generated should be fair and not meant to fleece the buyer. That is "Shubha labha", two words that all traders write on beginning their account books for the new year on the day of Deepawali (of course, not followed in practice). Second condition was that the traders (Vaishyas) will support the other three sections of the society, i.e., Brahmins, Warriors and Shudras (those who work for wages).

Gandhian economics believed the moneyed to act as guardians of the poor, only as treasurers.

Hinduism wants the moneyed to remember that the riches do not go with them when they die.
Hinduism was against capitalism without responsibilities, prestige without knowledge (in case of brahmins), valor (in case of warriors) and dedication to work (in case of shudras).

 

[Vouthon]

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet

True.

Another Catholic thinker, incidentally, was old Lord Acton...

 

[SomeRandom]

I have nothing against bosses.
I think the system is stupid for having bosses. Individual bosses cannot be blamed for the system and may or may not be hard working and involved. It is irrelevant.

The system is often stacked against everyone. But that's a competitive market for you.

and those responsibilities should be taken and given to the workers.

Not every worker is cut out to be a manager. Not every worker has the potential to shoulder those responsibilities. Sorry, that's just how it is.

I still don't recognize why this means we shouldn't have bosses. Also I don't understand what you mean by unpaid... they sort of reap the capital generated by the workplace which rivals their workers wages.

No they don't. You assume that the higher ups take care of you as soon as you go into management? Have you never worked for a billion dollar company focusing on the shareholders? I do that now. The management at my work get what 30-35 a year? Maybe 40 - 45 for the higher rung. That's actually pretty low earnings where I live.
They sign up for what we call "Salary" that essentially means their Union Agreement has a lot more loopholes all of a sudden. If they work overtime, the company doesn't have to pay them. They often forfeit their penalty rates for holiday work and Sunday shifts. And the higher up management can move them to any store nationwide anytime they like. In return they get to shoulder all the responsibility for **** ups, the company couldn't care less if their wage salary is such that they have to run 3-5 team members down on an average day. The only time management get anything is if they **** up somehow and that's when the company pounces. And since they are responsible for anything their team does, it doesn't matter if they were faultless.

But at the same time, don't pretend that the higher ups aren't getting their asses handed to them as well.
They answer to the shareholders who only give a **** about profit. Are there asshats in higher management who have never worked "the floor" a day in their lives? Judging by some of the "improvements" to policies, yeah there are. But do not pretend like they're all sitting on a beautiful tropical island somewhere, sipping martinis and lost in bikini babes every day. They're working around the clock, they're trying to hold their company together and make their deadlines too. You honestly think that CEOs just sit in their office every day, playing putt putt with coffee mugs and smoking cigars? Come on, this is the real world. Chances are those ****ers are running to endless meetings, getting their balls handed to them by those who expect a profit and are putting in far more time and hours than your average worker.
Why should you get a piece in their pie when you don't have anything to lose. You get fired, you go work for someone else. Might suck for a while, but you haven't lost more than a job at the end of the day. They stand to lose their legacy, their family's inheritance and perhaps even their life's work.
They put in far more time, more energy and gambled far more than you and I, so why should you get a piece?

Indeed. So we should abolish the job so we can collectively do our best to not make foolish mistakes and if we do we can collectively take the brunt, which will be less when divided among us.

No, because I like to have money for a roof over my head, thank you. And if I ever become an entrepreneur I certainly don't want to give an even share to some snot nosed entitled little brat who didn't put in the same amount of capital, hours or gambled as much as I would have had to. Let them earn a higher wage if they prove themselves, like everyone else has to.
I mean don't get me wrong, I'm all for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And I respect companies who treat their workers fairly and respectfully. But a boss has by default put in far more effort and time into their job and should also be recompensed for that.

 

[jeager106]

When one owns one's own business the owner is a slave driver.
Small business owners MUST put in lots and lots of hours/work
or the enterprise fails.
My fiance, now retired, was top in sales WORLDWIDE for her company.
The parent company only supplied a product but gave incentives for great sales.
She ran her business out of her home.
She was among the very first to recognize the value of video taping seminars
to be shown in a prospects home.
She hired professionals at editing and producing videos.
She did well.
She STILL has this business but on a much smaller scale.
(She's in her early 70's but don't ever let on I said that!)
She has more sales awards than will fit on a wall.
She lives in her $400 K + home and we vacation in her other home on the
water in Florida.
She has a Jag in the garage, 10 years old and hardly ever driven.
Freebie from her parent company.
All that done by a single mom (widowed) who is BLIND!
She can see the T-V if close and movies if we sit in the 4th row or so.
She darned sure can't drive and at night she needs led by the hand even
where there are street lights.
She has no use for career welfare people and, as you might guess, is conservative
in politics. She VOTES also.
She also puts up with me!
I don't let her buy anything when I stay with her which is often.
I buy groceries, do the cooking, and tend to her 1.5 acres and home in an exclusive
development and her 3rd home on a private lake not far from this home.
3 homes, a Jag, and anything else she wants and she's BLIND!
That's one hell of a great woman.
Oh, I didn't mention that I have a 15 year old tho I'm nearly 70.
She loves him and he loves her and calls her "mom".
Dolores judges no one.
Fact is one of the women she helped get started in a home based income
served a year in jail for selling cocaine.

 

[jeager106]

You are continually bringing things up that are completely irrelevant to the critique which offers little to no commentary.

I'm sooo sorry.
I digress to easily I'm afraid.
I got hung up on capitalism and only wanted to show how a handicapped
female excelled in this horrid capitalistic society.
Damn!
Perhaps she should have defected to Cuba or some such place.

 

[jeager106]

Capitalism is the greater good.
(You may quote me on that.)

I just HAD to quote Revoltingest!!!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Let's be clear: Its not that I don't like the anti-capitalist ideals expressed; I just fail to see how they could possibly work.

Workers can stop taking advice from the "elected boss" whenever.

I can any time I want. It's called, "I quit".

The boss would not have authority over the workplace, they would be an authority on the work place.

I see no difference.

Or as long as you have no other option.

There are always other options.

You would still benefit from social control over workplace because you would be able to have more autonomy and control over what you do for work and you wouldn't have to worry about a boss investing against your interests(ie: Global warming).

See, now that's not a workable thought. We go back to "one person's opinion who knows what they're doing is worth more than 12 peoples' opinions who don't." And why should we have any autonomy over the workplace? We, a human beings, ultimately seek the path of least resistance. If I'm getting paid the same whether or not I clean the toilet bowl, then why should I clean the toilet bowl? If we're all equally responsible to clean the toilet bowl, who gets corrected for not cleaning the toilet bowl? Why should I, who has no experience beyond cashiering and cooking, have any say whatsoever in how a multi-million dollar convenience store is ran?

Oh, don't get me wrong; I have the same gripes about our federal/democratic system of government: its ludicrous to me that 2 high school dropouts have more say in government than one intellectual. But that's another topic ...

am not sure how it would be done for each particular workplace type. Most of the groundwork was done accounting for farms, factories and distributors. There is still much to figure out.

See, and there we go, with the "whatiffs" and "heretofores". If you can't establish a working model beyond happy ideals, then I feel I should not be convinced into your way of thinking. I need a working model to compare with the opposing working model. If you can't give me a working model, then we'd be foolish to try. "figuring it out as we go along" just doesn't work; because "**** poor planning makes for **** poor performance".

Use your imagination and give me a "for instance".

 

[blue taylor]

When one owns one's own business the owner is a slave driver.
Small business owners MUST put in lots and lots of hours/work
or the enterprise fails.
My fiance, now retired, was top in sales WORLDWIDE for her company.
The parent company only supplied a product but gave incentives for great sales.
She ran her business out of her home.
She was among the very first to recognize the value of video taping seminars
to be shown in a prospects home.
She hired professionals at editing and producing videos.
She did well.
She STILL has this business but on a much smaller scale.
(She's in her early 70's but don't ever let on I said that!)
She has more sales awards than will fit on a wall.
She lives in her $400 K + home and we vacation in her other home on the
water in Florida.
She has a Jag in the garage, 10 years old and hardly ever driven.
Freebie from her parent company.
All that done by a single mom (widowed) who is BLIND!
She can see the T-V if close and movies if we sit in the 4th row or so.
She darned sure can't drive and at night she needs led by the hand even
where there are street lights.
She has no use for career welfare people and, as you might guess, is conservative
in politics. She VOTES also.
She also puts up with me!
I don't let her buy anything when I stay with her which is often.
I buy groceries, do the cooking, and tend to her 1.5 acres and home in an exclusive
development and her 3rd home on a private lake not far from this home.
3 homes, a Jag, and anything else she wants and she's BLIND!
That's one hell of a great woman.
Oh, I didn't mention that I have a 15 year old tho I'm nearly 70.
She loves him and he loves her and calls her "mom".
Dolores judges no one.
Fact is one of the women she helped get started in a home based income
served a year in jail for selling cocaine.

We are all glad you have a fiancé.