Capitalism and Christianity?

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Does Capitalism today play a similar role to Christianity 150 years ago in the United States? Both were/are the predominant... cultural grounding spots(?) of their day. Both are used to justify whom should be subjugated to whom. Both are used to create groups of those who are insiders or allies vs those who are outsiders or enemies. Both are being questioned by science. It seems like the role of each has many parallels to the other. In another 150 years will Capitalism play a similar role to Christianity in today's culture? If we have robots, grow our own food with technology, etc then what will be the need for Capitalism? Religion tends to play less of a role in people's lives as wealth increases, but if wealth increases even more then will Capitalism's role diminish in a similar manner?

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

I've been thinking about this sort of thing a lot lately, not just capitalism and Christianity but all common views among political parties.

For example, what is it that determines that a person who supports gay rights is likely to also support gun control? Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

And what determines that a person who values a strong military is also likely to oppose the concept of affirmative action? The two are completely unrelated.

After thinking about this, the only possibly explanation I could come up with is traditionalism vs. non-traditionalism. Capitalism and Christianity both have a long history in the Western world, specifically the US, and a lot of conservatives probably see these things as essential parts of the "American way of life" or "the way this country does things."

I'm not sure of the future of capitalism or Christianity. Personally, it seems to me like Christianity is making a comeback. I remember 6-8 years ago when activist groups were pushing for secularization of the country/world. That doesn't really happen anymore. I'd say the same about capitalism, but in that case there was never really a decline.

 

[Thalassa]

I've been thinking about this sort of thing a lot lately, not just capitalism and Christianity but all common views among political parties.

For example, what is it that determines that a person who supports gay rights is likely to also support gun control? Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

And what determines that a person who values a strong military is also likely to oppose the concept of affirmative action? The two are completely unrelated.

After thinking about this, the only possibly explanation I could come up with is traditionalism vs. non-traditionalism. Capitalism and Christianity both have a long history in the Western world, specifically the US, and a lot of conservatives probably see these things as essential parts of the "American way of life" or "the way this country does things."

I'm not sure of the future of capitalism or Christianity. Personally, it seems to me like Christianity is making a comeback. I remember 6-8 years ago when activist groups were pushing for secularization of the country/world. That doesn't really happen anymore. I'd say the same about capitalism, but in that case there was never really a decline.

Yeah I had this revelation about 6-7 years ago, I used to be a more "mainstream democrat" in most ways and I think it was a reaction to the disgust with really vocal far right pundits, like I remember hating Rush Limbaugh as early as 13-14 years old, even though I thought I was a Republican until I was 11-12. I'm not saying I was clever enough to see the rapid change in the right wing, it's more like my higher ability to reason kicked in my early teens.

But anyway, 6 years ago or so, I was watching something political on TV and the enormous stupidity of having to believe in x because you believed in y suddenly hit me. I actually stopped being friends with a couple of people because of it, who were hard core academic establishment liberals.

 

[Mole]

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism not only sleep in the same bed but they are inseparable.

It wasn't so long ago that Catholicism preached against usury, that is, the charging of interest, and relegated usury, a sin, to the Jews.

The along came Dr Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations and turned the world on its head, by teaching that private greed leads to public prosperity.

The Catholics had been preaching against private greed for ever, and now the Catholic antagonists seized on the economic teaching of Dr Adam Smith. The Protestants grasped with both hands private greed, and the charging of interest.

Protestants could now have their cake and eat it too. They could forget the teaching of Jesus, I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

So instead of the words of Jesus, Protestants now believed that wealth was a sign of God's favour.

So the charging of interest had gone from a sin to being a sign of sanctity.

Christianity and Capitalism had now formed a lucrative bond.

 

[Zangetshumody]

There are a huge amount of separable issues being conflated together here...

Those separable issues have been dealt with extensively by Chomsky, so as not to be a mere mouthpiece of Chomsky, I will try to repeat his words with my own flavoring:

First off- the topic of this thread is more to do with ideological cultism, which is a sort of tradition created out of the style of propaganda from the European World Wars. Most of the world is not in love with 'capitalism', most societies naturally tend toward socialist policies, notwithstanding the interference from abroad. The United States itself is not really a functional example of Capitalism, it has vast amounts of protectionism still in place since the Reagan presidency. "Capitalism" and talk about the operation of the free market is a shallow smokescreen to: (in Chomsky's words) make the folk believe that when the Government is doing something for them, its acting out of bounds, so that the Government can keep its massive structures focused on Corporate Welfare (A lot of which is not easily identified as such, and yet still is: eg. Military Spending, Financial Policy, Financial Regulation, isn't it weird that the vast extent of the economy has to do "trade" instead of tangible commerce, which can hardly keep itself in business because of the vastly more lucrative "trading" economy.

When you look at the amount of money in these decadent sectors of the economy, it is obvious that there needs to be a strong ideological big brother telling everyone not to question it. In this sense, it could be analogous to the Catholic Church fighting for its theological supremacy by real suppression; in the same way (so-called-) Capitalism also has to tell everyone about its Holy sanction while trying to silence the screaming from its ongoing conquest, right at edge of its last gasping breaths of blood lust (which was a similar historical fact to the secularization away from Catholic Church control).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWs6g3L3fkU&t=3m53s
^listen to the whole video from the beginning if you have the time to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7DdWmWUa_8
^ this is very good break down of the smokescreen matrix.

Also, I recently made posted a response to a /his/ thread, that I think its pertinent enough to add onto this topic, the thread was about how compatible right-wing rhetoric might be to some kind of real Socialism (or a Socialist project).
---
Thread raises some interesting questions for me:
1. What does it mean to be "right"leaning?
There are some other questions, but they only emerge depending on how you start to answer question
no.1 in the context of this thread.

All right wing extremism creates an image of a family unit over-layed atop the political unit; usually around the concept of 'the father' (i.e. the Fatherland). The father offers support only to 'the legitimate' children [of the state]. The Father has an investment into some kindof origin story of the character for the family unit. As far as I can see, depending on how your going to fudge your judgement on history in order to produce an origin story, is going to determine how vulgar the cultural fascism expresses itself. All these elements essentially put heavy restrictions on the libertarian notion of freedom for conscious belief (ideology and its supremacy through thought control and propaganda is its staple for sustaining this kind of nation state). It bears mentioning, that this tactic was carried over, ever since the European world wars, and is employed on some level in most western styled states.

The Nazi party branded itself a Socialist party, and in some respects it was, but one must never forget that its Socialism is only every done through a Nationalist imperative, that has to mirror the origin story that the 'the father' holds as its force of integrity.

These forms of government are incredibly ideologically fragile, and require increasing levels of thought control to sustain the integrity of their policies against the natural inclination of (at least some people) to 'speak truth to power'.

Generally the only way to sustain such systems is to develop greater and greater forms of vulgar racism in order to sustain the feelings of purity, which are naturally far too [grandiose and] inhuman to believe in with just sociologically-based propaganda; without a proper individual psychological component added to the rhetoric to anchor it without spinning into some extreme (of historically, genocidal proportions).

But its pretty hard to add a proper individual psychological component to rhetoric, because psychology is in a very undeveloped mode, and so the models used by these forms of politics just end up being a weird kind of personality cult that never interfaces uniformly with the minds of a population. It's hard for me to describe exactly what I'm trying to say: but basically most forms of politics, while especially overtly the right-wing politics, are really just personality-cults (I don't mean the ideation of a figure head necessarily, but an ideation of a fudged principle of supreme order, which is very appealing to certain forms of personality types: and so you will find the same 'pseudo-intellectual' types with their own brands of history, storytelling, racist-sentiments that allow them to bring order to their psychological reality: its to do with the individuals relation to the world power-authority).
Black Nationalists for example, are literally no different from the Nazi Party- in the style of their ideology,
and the brand of their 'solution', which is always labeled apolitical in its grounding.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Does Capitalism today play a similar role to Christianity 150 years ago in the United States? Both were/are the predominant... cultural grounding spots(?) of their day. Both are used to justify whom should be subjugated to whom. Both are used to create groups of those who are insiders or allies vs those who are outsiders or enemies. Both are being questioned by science. It seems like the role of each has many parallels to the other. In another 150 years will Capitalism play a similar role to Christianity in today's culture? If we have robots, grow our own food with technology, etc then what will be the need for Capitalism? Religion tends to play less of a role in people's lives as wealth increases, but if wealth increases even more then will Capitalism's role diminish in a similar manner?

Can you define capitalism and Christianity as you understand them?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Does Capitalism today play a similar role to Christianity 150 years ago in the United States? Both were/are the predominant... cultural grounding spots(?) of their day. Both are used to justify whom should be subjugated to whom. Both are used to create groups of those who are insiders or allies vs those who are outsiders or enemies. Both are being questioned by science. It seems like the role of each has many parallels to the other. In another 150 years will Capitalism play a similar role to Christianity in today's culture? If we have robots, grow our own food with technology, etc then what will be the need for Capitalism? Religion tends to play less of a role in people's lives as wealth increases, but if wealth increases even more then will Capitalism's role diminish in a similar manner?

Check out this thread.

Link

 

[Mole]

Fear, Greed and Blood Sacrifice

Can you define capitalism and Christianity as you understand them?

Capitalism is driven by fear and greed, while Christianity is a blood sacrifice.

So Capitalism is universal from Mongolia to Texas, while Christianity originated in the West.

Interestingly both are in denial: Capitalism speaks of free markets and denies fear and greed, while Christianity denies blood sacrifice and speaks of love.

And the denial speaks of a profound unconscious attachment to both Capitalism and Christianity: a profound and hidden, unconscious attachment to fear and greed, and blood sacrifice.

 

[Zangetshumody]

There are a huge amount of separable issues being conflated together here...

Those separable issues have been dealt with extensively by Chomsky, so as not to be a mere mouthpiece of Chomsky, I will try to repeat his words with my own flavoring:

First off- the topic of this thread is more to do with ideological cultism, which is a sort of tradition created out of the style of propaganda from the European World Wars. Most of the world is not in love with 'capitalism', most societies naturally tend toward socialist policies, notwithstanding the interference from abroad. The United States itself is not really a functional example of Capitalism, it has vast amounts of protectionism still in place since the Reagan presidency. "Capitalism" and talk about the operation of the free market is a shallow smokescreen to: (in Chomsky's words) make the folk believe that when the Government is doing something for them, its acting out of bounds, so that the Government can keep its massive structures focused on Corporate Welfare (A lot of which is not easily identified as such, and yet still is: eg. Military Spending, Financial Policy, Financial Regulation, isn't it weird that the vast extent of the economy has to do "trade" instead of tangible commerce, which can hardly keep itself in business because of the vastly more lucrative "trading" economy.

When you look at the amount of money in these decadent sectors of the economy, it is obvious that there needs to be a strong ideological big brother telling everyone not to question it. In this sense, it could be analogous to the Catholic Church fighting for its theological supremacy by real suppression; in the same way (so-called-) Capitalism also has to tell everyone about its Holy sanction while trying to silence the screaming from its ongoing conquest, right at edge of its last gasping breaths of blood lust (which was a similar historical fact to the secularization away from Catholic Church control).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWs6g3L3fkU&t=3m53s
^listen to the whole video from the beginning if you have the time to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7DdWmWUa_8
^ this is very good break down of the smokescreen matrix.

Also, I recently made posted a response to a /his/ thread, that I think its pertinent enough to add onto this topic, the thread was about how compatible right-wing rhetoric might be to some kind of real Socialism (or a Socialist project).
---
Thread raises some interesting questions for me:
1. What does it mean to be "right"leaning?
There are some other questions, but they only emerge depending on how you start to answer question
no.1 in the context of this thread.

All right wing extremism creates an image of a family unit over-layed atop the political unit; usually around the concept of 'the father' (i.e. the Fatherland). The father offers support only to 'the legitimate' children [of the state]. The Father has an investment into some kindof origin story of the character for the family unit. As far as I can see, depending on how your going to fudge your judgement on history in order to produce an origin story, is going to determine how vulgar the cultural fascism expresses itself. All these elements essentially put heavy restrictions on the libertarian notion of freedom for conscious belief (ideology and its supremacy through thought control and propaganda is its staple for sustaining this kind of nation state). It bears mentioning, that this tactic was carried over, ever since the European world wars, and is employed on some level in most western styled states.

The Nazi party branded itself a Socialist party, and in some respects it was, but one must never forget that its Socialism is only every done through a Nationalist imperative, that has to mirror the origin story that the 'the father' holds as its force of integrity.

These forms of government are incredibly ideologically fragile, and require increasing levels of thought control to sustain the integrity of their policies against the natural inclination of (at least some people) to 'speak truth to power'.

Generally the only way to sustain such systems is to develop greater and greater forms of vulgar racism in order to sustain the feelings of purity, which are naturally far too [grandiose and] inhuman to believe in with just sociologically-based propaganda; without a proper individual psychological component added to the rhetoric to anchor it without spinning into some extreme (of historically, genocidal proportions).

But its pretty hard to add a proper individual psychological component to rhetoric, because psychology is in a very undeveloped mode, and so the models used by these forms of politics just end up being a weird kind of personality cult that never interfaces uniformly with the minds of a population. It's hard for me to describe exactly what I'm trying to say: but basically most forms of politics, while especially overtly the right-wing politics, are really just personality-cults (I don't mean the ideation of a figure head necessarily, but an ideation of a fudged principle of supreme order, which is very appealing to certain forms of personality types: and so you will find the same 'pseudo-intellectual' types with their own brands of history, storytelling, racist-sentiments that allow them to bring order to their psychological reality: its to do with the individuals relation to the world power-authority).
Black Nationalists for example, are literally no different from the Nazi Party- in the style of their ideology,
and the brand of their 'solution', which is always labeled apolitical in its grounding.

I wanted to add onto my last progaraph, that the reason why fascist political sentiments can never stop themselves from getting wilder and more fanciful, is because of the great rift between 'apolitical'-story telling as it applies to the core human psychology. Fudged political rhetoric can only be employed by the parts of the false ego that need constant renewal or adaptation, as all storytelling-based coercion is antithetical to expressions of real human intelligence, and so require constant evolution in order to disguise the incoherence of the nebulous ideology. Luigi Zoja tracks these developments as manifestations of the socially successful paranoid (who gain the support of the culture/society they manage to infect).

 

[Typh0n]

Does Capitalism today play a similar role to Christianity 150 years ago in the United States? Both were/are the predominant... cultural grounding spots(?) of their day.

Capitalism is not a culture. It is an economic system. Though I think its quiet pop-culture to blame capitalism and say it has failed.

Both are used to justify whom should be subjugated to whom.

How does capitalism, or Christianity, decide who should subjugated to whom?

Both are used to create groups of those who are insiders or allies vs those who are outsiders or enemies.

So this is true only of capitalism and Christianity? Its true of every other system or belief there is.

Both are being questioned by science.

Certain propositions of Christianity, mainly taking the genesis creation account literally - has been refuted by science. That does not mean Christioanity is incompatible with science, though. Capitalism is not "being questioned by science". Or I'm not sure what you're referring to.

It seems like the role of each has many parallels to the other. In another 150 years will Capitalism play a similar role to Christianity in today's culture?

Only time wil tell, but the whole capitalism will collapse thing is the talk of the moment. Perhaps we will see other systems than capitalism show up. Maybe not. Maybe we will return to socialism/communism and see how that works out again.

If we have robots, grow our own food with technology, etc then what will be the need for Capitalism?

Now, remarks like this just make me wonder how much thought people put into these posts. Robots do not build themselves, you know. The parts have to be made somewhere, and people do not have the time or know-how to build robots themselves. What you are describing is essentially autarchy - which is not possible since not everyone can grow the same food in the same places, we need some kind of trade and markets to ensure the goods from there will be supplied here, and vice versa.

Religion tends to play less of a role in people's lives as wealth increases, but if wealth increases even more then will Capitalism's role diminish in a similar manner?

Wealth increasing? The economy will collapse, but not because of capitalism. You don't see the writing is on the wall?...

 

[Mole]

Fear and greed lead Capitalism into a cycle of boom and bust. So Capitalism must have a flywheel to remain steady. The flywheel is welfare or the military. The flywheel in the USA is the military, and a successful flywheel it is.

The flywheel not only produces a military that can fight and win, not one, but two global wars at once. And the military flywheel funds research and development in the USA. And the US military encouraged social integration in the US. And the US military provides a secure global environment for trade.