Is capitalism really such a good system?

[P. G. Tipps]

... I wouild never advocate the burning down of churches, .. .

Well, that'll certainly be a little more encouraging news for the local vicar and his parishioners these days ... <winkeye>

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, that'll certainly be a little more encouraging news for the local vicar and his parishioners these days ... <winkeye>

<<laugh>>

It would be a shame to limit visiting sites on the tourist schedule!

[Richard Barrett]

I rather think Christianity, like most religions, by definition, (but for reasons specific to each), stands in the way of change.

It's bound to, isn't it, being concerned (like other religions) with concepts of "eternal verities", which enables it to be used as a force for retaining a hierarchical status quo, as first put into practice in the later Roman Empire. And, as we see with the acceptance of homosexuality, contraception, abortion, divorce etc. etc. Christian orthodoxy always lags behind the centre of gravity of public opinion.

[teamsaint]

It's bound to, isn't it, being concerned (like other religions) with concepts of "eternal verities", which enables it to be used as a force for retaining a hierarchical status quo, as first put into practice in the later Roman Empire. And, as we see with the acceptance of homosexuality, contraception, abortion, divorce etc. etc. Christian orthodoxy always lags behind the centre of gravity of public opinion.

I would think you are generally right.

What about something like execution?

[Flosshilde]

One of the fallacies in the question (is that the right way to put it?) is that there is only one type of capitalism. Clearly the current capitalist system, as it has developed since the onset of the industrial revolution in the 19th century, has failed & consigned millions of people to misery - they have been no less oppressed than Cubans under Castro (& have had poorer education, medical & social care). Perhaps those supporters of capitalism would like to offer a justification for the present system?

[Richard Barrett]

What about something like execution?

For example, the current Catechism of the Catholic Church contains the words "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor."

[waldo]

One of the phalacies in the question (is that the right way to put it?) is that there is only one type of capitalism. Clearly the current capitalist system, as it has developed since the onset of the industrial revolution in the 19th century, has failed & consigned millions of people to misery - they have been no less oppressed than Cubans under Castro (& have had poorer education, medical & social care). Perhaps those supporters of capitalism would like to offer a justification for the present system?

The word is "fallacies"......."fallacy" being the singular.

"Phalacies" sounds like a Joycean marriage of "Phallic" and "Fallacies": a weakness or flaw that is connected to (or caused by!) the male sexual organ.

[P. G. Tipps]

For example, the current Catechism of the Catholic Church contains the words "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor."

Of course, it contains quite a few more words than that ...

Here is paragraph 2267 in full:

2267 <Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offence incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." >

Which is probably why Popes spend quite a bit of their time condemning executions in states throughout the world, though, having said all that, I'm really not quite sure about any obvious connection between the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Protestant Anglo-Saxon Capitalism!

[Richard Barrett]

Of course, it contains quite a few more words than that

Indeed, but the principle is there. Presumably Jesus himself wouldn't have condoned killing people under ANY circumstances...

Anyway, my reason for posting was thinking about Teamsaint's questioning whether the (unspecified) Christian church was or wasn't lagging behind public opinion on the subject of the death penalty. I think that depends on where you look. From the figures I've found, there are numerous countries where majority public opinion is clearly against it, others (like the UK) where there isn't much in it, and others where there's a large majority in favour.

[Flosshilde]

The word is "fallacies"......."fallacy" being the singular.

I knew it wasn't right, & have just corrected it.

"Phalacies" sounds like a Joycean marriage of "Phallic" and "Fallacies": a weakness or flaw that is connected to (or caused by!) the male sexual organ.

Which, as we all know, is not possible

Sniggering asside, as you knew what I meant perhaps you'd like to offer a defence of a system that has caused more misery than communism ever did (or does)?

[waldo]

I knew it wasn't right, & have just corrected it.



Which, as we all know, is not possible

Sniggering asside, as you knew what I meant perhaps you'd like to offer a defence of a system that has caused more misery than communism ever did (or does)?

Very briefly, then (just about to go to bed):

1. It allows people to make choices about: what they consume, who they buy from, where they work, what they produce and sell, and to own property and dispose of it as they wish. These are basic freedoms for me and they are the bedrock of capitalism. Any system that isn't capitalism (whatever they might be) is likely to infringe on these freedoms in one way or another.

2. It is the most efficient system known. Competitive forces, along with incentives provided by self-interested motives of various kinds, encourage the most efficient use of resources and generate technological developments which underpin long term gains in welfare.

3. It's ability to co-ordinate economic activity (without government intervention) is unparalleled. The market, which acts as a meeting place for buyers and consumers, is also a means of processing information - information about costs and producer constraints on the one hand; and information concerning consumer preferences on the other. The resulting activity, which also co-ordinates labour markets, generates an output which meets the preferences of consumers. It is the reason why we don't have acute or permanent shortages and surpluses in capitalist countries and also the reason why producers only produce goods and services people want. No alternative system has ever been able to match capitalism in this regard. All command style economics are characterised by chronic shortages and by an output which does not come close to meeting the needs and preferences of individuals.

Finally, this system has not caused more misery than communism. With all due respect (and I mean that), I can only assume that you don't really know what happened under communism in both Russia and China in the twentieth century. Misery doesn't come close.

[jean]

1. It allows people to make choices about: what they consume, who they buy from, where they work, what they produce and sell, and to own property and dispose of it as they wish. These are basic freedoms for me and they are the bedrock of capitalism.

But it's not everyone who has these freedoms.

[teamsaint]

Very briefly, then (just about to go to bed):


2. It is the most efficient system known. Competitive forces, along with incentives provided by self-interested motives of various kinds, encourage the most efficient use of resources and generate technological developments which underpin long term gains in welfare.

3. It's ability to co-ordinate economic activity (without government intervention) is unparalleled. The market, which acts as a meeting place for buyers and consumers, is also a means of processing information - information about costs and producer constraints on the one hand; and information concerning consumer preferences on the other. The resulting activity, which also co-ordinates labour markets, generates an output which meets the preferences of consumers. It is the reason why we don't have acute or permanent shortages and surpluses in capitalist countries and also the reason why producers only produce goods and services people want. No alternative system has ever been able to match capitalism in this regard. All command style economics are characterised by chronic shortages and by an output which does not come close to meeting the needs and preferences of ......

2. We are consistently told by those who benefit , that competition is what drives efficiency, keeps costs down meets needs and demand. But this is by no means clear.
It seems just as likely,in a very practical sense, that these things can be done just as well, and probably better, through cooperative enterprise.
Example: in the businesses I have worked in most of my working life, cooperation to do what we do better with the resources available has always been the driver. Talking about what the competition is up to has almost always been a long way down the list of concerns.

3. It is also not clear that capitalism meets needs efficiently, and gives people what they want.
We have a chronic shortage of housing in the UK, and a developing shortage of healthcare. The worst housing problems were caused by the most market driven government, in the Thatcher era.Food needs are not by any means always met by the market. Check out activity at the Trussell. Trust.
The competitive market also produces vast amounts of goods that need to find a market, and dont always manage that.have you seen the mountains of utter junk that get sold , and then thrown away at Christmas ? Is this what people really want to use economic resources for?

[Richard Barrett]

It allows people to make choices about: what they consume, who they buy from, where they work, what they produce and sell, and to own property and dispose of it as they wish. These are basic freedoms for me

... but unfortunately not for a large proportion of people who live in the shadow of capitalism, especially in the third world. As for efficiency: as has already been mentioned, it inevitably produces periodic crises of varying degrees of severity, up to and including wars, which generally result in a greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the already rich. I wouldn't call this very efficient, although if you're in the "one per cent" you'd see it differently I guess. This is just in addition to what Teamsaint has already said.

And as for communism, if we define it, as I would, in terms such as "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", and as an expansion of democratic participation rather than a denial of it, the brutality of régimes like those of the Soviet Union and Mao's China oughtn't to be blamed on communism, since these were dictatorships rather than anything resembling communism. Isn't that obvious?

[P. G. Tipps]

Given that people are all different with varying ideas of what constitutes 'abilities' and 'needs' I fail to see how a communist system can be applied other than under a dictatorial authority. Capitalism and religion ... both, as rival philosophies, clear threats to the communist state ... are therefore banned outright or their associated activities curbed by law. Instead there are 'democratic' elections and committees within the system itself, but ultimately all are rigidly controlled by the highest authority at the top. Of course in return people enjoy a measure of basic security not offered by capitalism or religion.

Probably the nearest we have in the UK to a communist organisation operating within the capitalist system is the John Lewis Partnership. The workers (rather grandly referred to as Partners!) share in some of the profits and enjoy genuine benefits and a measure of security that rival retail workers can only gasp at with envy. There are also numerous councils and committees which allow Partners to express opinions and lodge complaints against other colleagues including managers. Sadly, that's where the good news ends. Views are aired and discussed often with great passion but the ultimate power to effect any change lies with senior management and the result is that the cosy status-quo is always the safest and best option (for senior management). Middle Management Partners also enjoy extra privileges compared to their shopfloor counterparts and are understandably loathe to rock the boat just as in less 'worker-friendly' organisations. It could be described as a benign dictatorship but a dictatorship it is nonetheless!

I'm not necessarily criticising the system above, my point is that you do need a dictatorial authority ... and a more powerful, better-off elite ... under any sort of communist system, if it is to work effectively or even at all.