-
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
I don't see capitalism as adharmic. There is nothing inherently wrong with providing goods or services for money.Is capitalism away from the natural order of things, and another false part of reality, that blinds us from working for the greater good?
vaguelyhumanoid
Active Member
Capitalism =/= trade. Capitalism is a specific system of production and property. You can have trade and currency in a socialist system, a feudal system etc.
Yet what if you're knowingly ripping people off, to make the most profit available?
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
I see your point as I have studied Business Admin at a collegiate level.
There appears to be nothing altruistic about modern business models; as everything that is done, is done to benefit the business financially.
Take, for example, "corporate social responsibility" and "humanitarianism". Business students are encouraged to "give back" to the public and the world at large; however, this is encouraged for self-serving reasons:
Business ethics are wholly and totally amoral; and often, cross the lines into outright immoral. However, there are individuals within businesses do, sometimes, include moral, altruistic persons who use the business to legitimately help others just for the sake of helping others. This is considered a "poor business model", however, and is scorned by corporate culture.
There appears to be nothing altruistic about modern business models; as everything that is done, is done to benefit the business financially.
Take, for example, "corporate social responsibility" and "humanitarianism". Business students are encouraged to "give back" to the public and the world at large; however, this is encouraged for self-serving reasons:
- The funds donated become a tax write off; paying taxes does not benefit the company (as far as they see) but humanitarian donations do.
- Providing humanitarian aid improves the image of the business; which in turn, draws customers.
- A positive image of the public brings in the dough.
Business ethics are wholly and totally amoral; and often, cross the lines into outright immoral. However, there are individuals within businesses do, sometimes, include moral, altruistic persons who use the business to legitimately help others just for the sake of helping others. This is considered a "poor business model", however, and is scorned by corporate culture.
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
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
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.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.
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.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What works for the greater good?Is capitalism away from the natural order of things, and another false part of reality, that blinds us from working for the greater good?
Heaven.
Unnatural to the way life is; plus it does create those things.
In my opinion it isn't 'natural' or 'ideal' but not intrinsically immoral or wicked either, if what one means by 'capitalism' is simply a market economy with private property. The market is certainly preferable to a planned, state-directed economy that leaves no room for individualism, entrepreneurialism, autonomy or originality.
It can be unbalanced and unjust, however, if "profit" is viewed as the sole purpose and guiding force of the economy, competition is taken to be the supreme law of economic relations and private ownership of the means of production is made into an absolute right without limits and corresponding social obligations.
For instance, the capitalistic mind-set can foster a "quick fix" society that encourages people to become obsessed with the use and "throwing away" of instantaneous goods on demand. This can create a vicious cycle in which everything, including human beings themselves, becomes "objectified" in terms of "profit", such that those deemed economically unproductive are viewed as a drain on society for not being "profitable". This also trains people to think in terms of short-term pleasure rather than enduring happiness i.e. consumerism tempts us to spend rather than save and buy perishable goods to satiate our cravings rather than focusing on things that could lead to more lasting joy.
This is all very de-humanizing and harmful to a spiritual way of life. And yet, "the market economy" could be directed towards less immoral ends and simply be a neutral means of generating growth. It doesn't have to be quite so immoral ipso facto by its very nature, I think.
Last edited:
Yes, the only thing worse is every other system.
In Hinduism, there is nothing wrong with capitalism.Is capitalism away from the natural order of things, and another false part of reality, that blinds us from working for the greater good?
Obviously abuse is immoral. But that is the case for all human concerns.
Yet what if you're knowingly ripping people off, to make the most profit available?
Once again you paint with a very broad brush.
Explain "knowingly ripping people off".
Buying something at an extremely low value, and selling it for loads more than it is worth....
The idea in capitalism is to make as much capital as possible, unfortunately we only have finite resources, and it always means exploiting someone to prosper.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Immoral? No. Amoral.
Sinful? I don't believe in "sin" thus this has no meaning to me.
Wrong? In and of itself, no.
Wicked? No. Ideas are not "wicked"; people are, or ideas in the wrong people's minds (including religious ideas) can be "wicked".
Unjust? Anything taken to extremes is "unjust". Every other economic policy can be "unjust" just as easily.
Unbalanced? Anything can be"unbalanced"; including spirituality.
Unnatural? No. We are territorial by nature; thus, it is natural for us to establish territory and ownership. We are also, by nature, "pack" or "herd" creatures; thus, "us vs them" is a natural state for us. Notice, however, that just because something is "natural", I am not stating that such is "right", "correct" or "moral". Simply, and only, that it is "natural".
Just my opinions ...
And the workers get PAID.
Get it? Wages.
Factory and business owners should and NEED to make a profit else the go broke.
Near as I know NO ONE is forced to work anywhere for nothing or next to nothing.
If every business, large or small, went belly up tomorrow the concern could no
longer operate.
Then YOU and everyone else would be up an intellectual creek without a paddle.
Tell me, if you like, do YOU work for a living?
IF so do YOU expect to get paid?
Do you pay bills, taxes, support yourself?
(need not answer that last. Or respond at all.)
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Capitalism doesn't have to be like this. Capitalists (and business owners) don't have to resell electronic components at 200% markup. Such can reasonably be sold at 35% markup and the proprietor still make a decent living (depending on demand). Greed is a human condition; and is seen in other economic models. Greed is not solely a capitalist condition.
Now who works against their will?
No one is forced to work for anyone.
That would be slavery which, is illegal in case you didn't know.
"Ideas are not wicked"
Hmm...so racial superiority is not an inherently 'bad' idea? There could have been good adherents of Nazism? The pursuit of lebensraum in Eastern Europe could have been achieved more humanely?
The Jim Crow laws were not inherently wicked and de-humanizing to Afro-Americans?
Separate but equal is just a value-neutral idea?
I don't think so, personally speaking ideas can be innately immoral IMHO....
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Do you study history per chance? Have you not seen the lessons learned by the feudal systems from around the globe? Are you oblivious to the incredible suffering of the paupers and peasants in those barbaric systems? Capitalism ... and our current state of capitalism ... are far, far from perfect. But, there is little or no need for anyone in our current capitalist system to go hungry or homeless. The options to alleviate and avoid this are endless. And while capitalists do so for self-serving ends, it remains that much of the goodwill received by today's poor are received because of the capitalist. We have it easy compared to other systems in the past.
Socialism allows the dominate to profit off the labour of the remaining parties
Communism allows the government and elite to profit off the labour of the remaining parties.
What you are speaking about is a condition of every economic system out there. Singling out capitalism alone is biased and nearsighted.