Do you think capitalism is the best available economic system (as in it is the fairest, most productive, etc?).
If another system came along that didn't capitalise on the lower and middle classes, would you support it?
I am asking because of a conversation I recently had with a friend who insists that nobody would ever vote for a candidate that didn't support capitalism; I think that this is absurd because the vast majority of Americans are lower or middle class citizens, and would think it more fair and just to be paid more for their work, and the owners of their place of employment be paid less.
Thoughts, anyone?
One could just as easily say that the lower and middle classes 'capitalize' on the Capitalist system. Large corporations spend millions trying to find out what goods and services I want to spend my money on, then make those products, and ship them to a convient location near me, at a price I am willing and able to pay; I put that in the category of "saving me time and effort" rather than in the "I'm being exploited" category.
I work for a large corporation. They can fire me at any time. I frequently feel stressed and unappreciated. Yet I am grateful, genuinely grateful for the job. Why? Because it's better than the alternatives I have, given my skill set and motivation (I'm a relatively lazy person). Overseas, people work in sweatshops for a pittance, and are grateful, because it's better than subsistence farming (or whatever other jobs are available).
Here in America, I know a guy who is the poster boy for Gordon Gecko. He wants to go straight for the top, and just might make it. I have also worked with a guy who spends six months working at a factory, and then spends the next six months in a commune. It's his bag, baby. I have a feeling that a socialist system would be pretty sweet for the second guy, not so much for the first. But fortunately, each is free to "pursue happiness" as he sees fit, since we have a Capitalist system.
The economic challenge for communities is how to distribute scarce resources. Capitalism distributes said resources through the marketplace--the person who values the resource most highly will be willing to pay the highest amount of time and treasure to attain it. Socialism allocates resources through political channels--if you are connected, if you know the right people, then you can get the house near the good schools or the corner office looking out over the bay. If you are dissatisfied with the goods and services of the Capitalist, you find a different Capitalist who gives you what you want (you can choose who's going to exploit you). If you don't like the Socialist's goods and services, as far as I can tell, you spend a lot of time waiting in lines and bugging bureaucrats. Capitalists, in the pursuit of profit, work on ways to reduce costs, and therefore waste. They seek to innovate new methods and machinery, and as a result lower the cost of goods. Lowering the cost of goods raises people's standard of living. Walmart, with its low prices policy, has been giving everyone who shops there a de facto raise.
Capitalism can be practiced with little or no government intervention, which means greater political freedom. Socialism requires the government to intervene in people's lives and coordinate people's activities and choices, limiting political freedom.
If it's not obvious by now, I am a supporter of the Capitalist system. But if someone could prove to me, Scripturally, that Capitalism and Christianity are incompatible, and that Capitalism actually hurts my walk with Christ, then I would abandon Capitalism in a heartbeat.
I just don't see it, though.
I have read in several previous posts the claim that Capitalism generates "greed", as if greed weren't already solidly imbedded in the human heart. Living in a Socialist economy does not eliminate human greed, and does not contribute to a Christian's sanctification any more than Capitalism does.
Jesus criticized rich people's inability to trust in God rather than their wealth, and he proclaimed that the poor would inherit God's Kingdom. His half brother James told the rich to "howl and weep" for the miseries they were going to endure in the afterlife. This is not an indictment of free market economics. One of the primary ways to get rich in that time was to exploit (really exploit) other people: using political power to steal their lands, buying government contracts to collect taxes (and collecting more than the government required), and other things of that nature.
On the other hand, in Jesus' parable of the Talents (and also the pounds), the servants were held responsible for how much return they got on their investments. The guy with the most talents was given the one talent of the lazy servant, who was thrown into outer darkness. Sounds like a Capitalist to me. The parable of the day laborers, who agreed to work contracts with the guy who paid a penny a day, indicates an acceptance of private property rights. The parables were stories told to express spiritual truths, but the underlying philosphies of private property, of risk and reward, are present, which in my view lean toward a Capitalist mentality.
After Jesus' ascension, the church in Jerusalem developed a sort of communal society. But, it existed only within the church community, and was apparently the best way for people to remain in Jerusalem to learn Jesus' teachings directly from His Apostles. I don't think that they were advocating National Economic Policy.
While I don't see that either system blatantly promoted in Scripture, I think that if the government can dictate to you what you can do with your property (as in Socialism), then it controls your livelihood, and your freedoms, including religious beliefs, are subject to the state's tolerance. If the government is limited in how it can control your property (and thus your livelihood), it is less likely to control your freedoms, including religious belief. Capitalism is better, more conducive to Christianity.
IMHO
