Would Jesus support free market capitalism?

Author: Nemiroff

Posts

Total: 10
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
Title says it all. What are your thoughts?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,382
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
No, but I also don't go with the 'he was a socialist' angle either. He'd support strategised Kleptocracy that isn't run by Jews but instead by a Christian elite. This is based both on how Christianity is practised and also on how the actual character Jesus acts in the storyline (despite what he preaches).

You notice how his disciples were an elitist cult? They first had to swear away loyalties to anyone and anything other than Jesus and then had to go along with the nonsense and only be rewarded if they blindly believed in it to begin with (otherwise they were a 'fake fan' so to speak). Extend that to economics and how the 'disciple elite' who serve the agenda he stands by would act. There is then no wonder that Christianity inspired colonialism, slavery and much else. Don't come back at me with 'but Muslims did it too! So did the Romans! Even the Ancient Egyptians!!!', I know they did. I don't support their religions, maybe Roman religion I support more than the rest because Romans never claimed they were the good guys, just the unfairly 'chosen winners' by fate so to speak... there to entertain the Gods.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Yes
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
Jesus' philosophy was 'quietism' (in the political sense).   To him political and economic system were irrelevant because it was all going to end soon anyway.  "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's" was his instruction to 'keep calm and carry on' until the new order arrived.

Politics and economics are very much 'of this world', about which Jesus expressed little interest.

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
I take it we can look at Jesus through the lens of both the OT and the NT including his people of old and his 1st century disciples with Paul. In other words, I take it that we need to see continuity between the Old and the New - not just discontinuity. 

The OT with its 10 commandments - and in particular its "you shall not steal" command - implicitly provide for private property. Hence it is quite plausible to say Jesus is opposed to communism - where private property is abolished. 

The NT famine in Jerusalem circa Pentecost noted in Acts gives us the view that the Church provided for the weak, particularly within the community of the church. Acts tells us the church family, meaning private individuals, sold their possessions and gave to those who needed it. This was clearly voluntary and the distributers were the Church, not the State, hence a movement away from socialism where socialism is defined as centralised state control / organisations. 

Paul tells us in Romans 13 - to owe man nothing, except love. He also said out of your abundance give, while Jesus clearly was ok with giving the crumbs to the dogs. There is a sense of a trickle down effect happening here from a supply side - view of the market which is also a trend away from Keynesian and indeed modern market individualism both which rely heavily on a demand side basis. 

The NT clearly tells the disciples to value heavenly things more than earthly things. And to give when it is possible to help the poor and vulnerable. Yet there is also a clear focus on Christians practising and preserving the environment and being good stewards of the planet. Hence don't be greedy. Don't over-exploit.  Don't steal. Respect the government. Respect the family. Respect the church. 

Free Market Capitalism, like socialism is notoriously difficult to define. Which version is correct? Does the Classical position take the cake? Or does Keynes method take the cake? Does the modern emphasis on individualism take the honours? 

Free Market capitalism relies upon the notion that people are self-interested. Socialism, the notion that people are intrinsically good. Free market thereby reflects more accurately the world the idea that people are sinful - thereby self-interested. Yet socialism - when defined not by government control but by a focus on justice and equity which is powered by voluntarism probably more describes the redeemed Christian's worldview. 

Hence, the question is going to be in many ways determined by what kind of world do we currently live in? Is it more worldly or it is more Christian? Are people more self-interested or is there a sense in which people are other focused or even God focused? 





Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Forgive me, but can you define the different theories of free market capitalism? I understood it as simply anything goes as long as its making profit.

Which form of communism/socialism do you think is the intended form? (Government vs community based)?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Jesus was not a materialist.

Both capitalism and communism are intrinsically materialistic. 

1504 days later

Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Tradesecret
@Nemiroff
I don't know,
Capitalism seems a workable system to me,
One often lives by/with/near people who practice such,

"Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."

Being able to help the poor, it 'helps to have capital, I'd think.
Helps to have a job, income to distribute.

Though it seems to me that he'd discourage people who make gathering money and hurting others on the way to that, their goal.

I've sometimes heard when discussing Communism, the term personal property.

"Private property, to a communist, is not your shoes or toothbrush, or even your house.
Those things are called personal property and under socialism and under communism they continue to belong to workers in much the same manner as they do now.
When Marxists speak of private property under capitalism, it refers to the tools of production that should be owned by all of society, such as factories, lands, stores, mines and all those things that are gifts of nature or are built by many people over many centuries, but are now being monopolized by a few. These few don’t concern themselves with how many years of human labor went into their creation, just so long as they alone can reap profits from legal ownership of that property."

Arguably, I 'think it's still possible to steal from other individuals in a communist society.
. . . .

I 'do like what you say about "voluntary" action, not the "state".

As keithprosser says, I don't remember Jesus talking much about organizing a country on Earth in the Bible, and laws and force he intended to use upon people,
Talked 'more about personal action,
But I don't read the Bible too much, so might be he says more than I think about State Laws.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Nemiroff
Forgive me, but can you define the different theories of free market capitalism? I understood it as simply anything goes as long as its making profit.
Free market capitalism is defined by some like the movie Wall Street - as - anything goes.  I would think that is not capitalism because it doesn't explain what freedom is.  It can't mean being free to do whatever you want. No one thinks that is correct. How can someone enter into a contract if there are no rules?

Yet, free market capitalism - simply means - in many respects - free from government interference.  It is asserting that the government has its own domain and so does the private citizen and business.  And that the two should not overlap.  This doesn't mean breaking the law, ripping people off, over-exploiting markets, and theft.  

Some people have said - and I tend to think it is true - that free enterprise requires a system of government that has a high moral view - where people respect other people.  Some have said you can't export free enterprise. And I think that is true. Whenever people have attempted to have a market system in a country without proper morals and a system of law, it tends towards corruption and greed. 

There is a difference between classical capitalism based on supply v Keynesian capitalism which is based on demand. the former says - build on what you have already. The latter says - use what you don't have yet to make more. 


Which form of communism/socialism do you think is the intended form? (Government vs community based)?

I don't think the bible would promote either form of socialism or communism.  It is private property based. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Lemming
I've sometimes heard when discussing Communism, the term personal property.

"Private property, to a communist, is not your shoes or toothbrush, or even your house.
Those things are called personal property and under socialism and under communism they continue to belong to workers in much the same manner as they do now.
When Marxists speak of private property under capitalism, it refers to the tools of production that should be owned by all of society, such as factories, lands, stores, mines and all those things that are gifts of nature or are built by many people over many centuries, but are now being monopolized by a few. These few don’t concern themselves with how many years of human labor went into their creation, just so long as they alone can reap profits from legal ownership of that property."
Yes, I've heard that too.  I think it is just words.  Private and personal are the same thing. 


Arguably, I 'think it's still possible to steal from other individuals in a communist society.
Of course it is, you can't get rid of private property absolutely.  Unless you are a slave or have become one. 

I 'do like what you say about "voluntary" action, not the "state".

As keithprosser says, I don't remember Jesus talking much about organizing a country on Earth in the Bible, and laws and force he intended to use upon people,
Talked 'more about personal action,
But I don't read the Bible too much, so might be he says more than I think about State Laws.
Voluntary is the basis of private property and private transactions. It is when we are compelled that things get messy.