CAPITALISM IS EVILSOCIALISM IS GODLY

The reason why ideological capitalism completely defeated ideological communism in the twentieth century was not because communists are evil but because capitalists accept that capitalists are evil. The only argument for capitalism is that it works. The reason why it works is because the vast majority of people are only greedy for that which benefits themselves. Greed is not evil but greed that hurts others is. In theory it is possible for humankind to embrace a Godly greed and, therefore, a Godly capitalism. Such a thing would be based on people being greedy for the other and in profit being pursued only so that it can be passed on to the other. There is a name for this idea - socialism.

Socialism is the using of human will to harness human greed for the benefit of the other.

Capitalism is the ignoring of human will and embracing greed for the benefit of the self.

The system is the same. The motivation is different.

Motivation can be Godly or evil.

Socialism is based on Godly motivation and is, therefore, a Christian ideal.

Capitalism is entirely evil in its motivation.

There can be no such thing as a Christian capitalist as the motivation for capitalism, the satisfying of self, is exactly that which Christ preached against. Though he did so, not so much by condemning selfishness, but by showing that our duty to others is so great that it leaves no opportunity for us to be selfish.

Comments

CAPITALISM IS EVILSOCIALISM IS GODLY — 13 Comments

  1. Capitalism works? Many would disagree.

    Perhaps more to capitalism than just defining it by the recipient of the process. There’s the damage it causes in working out that process, the treating of the earth and the people as assets or resources. The dehumanising of the needs of man.

    I like the post though!

  2. My very left-wing cousin once called the economic system of the Soviet Union state capitalism. That system didn’t work well. It is very clear to me that capitalism in its current form accomplishes some things, but at costs that we can no longer live with. It is, e.g., a good thing that we can enjoy music and other elements of culture from many countries, but it is not at all a good thing that American popular culture has in some places threatened to wipe out local culture.
    I suspect that we may not see the death of capitalism, but there is much that we can do to eliminate some of its worst aspects.

  3. The problem is there never really was a “communist” society for capitalism to defeat – throughout the history of the 20th Century, there were established oligarchies, or totalitarian dictatorships that called themselves “communist” to harness the support of the people the rulers-to-be wished to do the dirty work of revolution.

  4. Maybe I’m becoming more Buddhist about this [the following is a riff off my post re capital punishment, below]

    Capitalism is based upon a practice that looks like this:

    Quick! Take all you can {Self}, before everybody else does, and I’m left w/ NOTHING!

    It’s fear-based.

    It’s IGNORANCE (as taught by the Buddha—as opposed to the Judeo-Christian Good-vs-Eeeeevil dichotomy)

    My 2c.

  5. This is correct, MP.

    Consider also that most pagan religions focus on fertility, creativity & prosperity. Offerings to such deities like Freyr, Freyja, Thor and Frigg for varying manifestations of prosperity & fertility are nothing unusual. Abudance – in money, or crops, or children, etc – is seen as a good thing among pagans, it’s true. :nods:

    Just sayin’

  6. I don’t think either a communist or a socialist would say that abundance or prosperity are bad things, just that, if that abundance and prosperity does not benefit all in the community, it is not beneficial to the community.

  7. Further thought to add to my thought above…

    Contrast the pagan way of petitioning the Gods for prosperity with the way St. Francis (and likely many others) courted Poverty – emptying of oneself, divesting oneself of everything, so as not to get in the way of God’s will.

    Although Jonathan is right when he comments that in primitive pagan societies, all is done for the group. There was still the ideas of “inangarth” or “in-group” vs the “utengarth” or “out-group” so there still was something of the “us vs them” mentality.

    Yet I’d say that this is where many reconstructionist pagans like Joe are quite different than the neo-pagans. Reconstructionists endeavor to re-construct, as closely as possible, the old cultural values and practices, which includes the value or “thew” of hospitality and sharing what one has with others.

    The more modern-age influenced neo-pagans are far more individualistic, with more emphasis on “what works for ME” and “what’s in it for ME” kind of thinking.

    Hmmmmm…..