Capitalism a product of Western/Protestant thought process?

Page 1 of 1 [ 11 posts ] 

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

10 Aug 2013, 12:03 am

http://web.archive.org/web/201101311141 ... ismos1.htm

Great like 40 page essay written by an Orthodox priest. Maybe pretty boring and dry, I've only finished half so far, but it's fascinating to me.

Some quotes I find interesting.

Quote:
Max Weber observes extensively that during the Middle Ages in the West, all sciences and arts, the entire way of life, were confronted rationally, then set out logically and organised on the basis of a logical system. This helps him greatly to attribute all this mentality to the Reform movement which had been based on upright reasoning (rational reason) and Man’ rational relationship with God, his neighbour and society. Logical reasoning was regarded as the centre of man’s existence.

It is within this frameset that we should also see the existence of Capitalism. In fact, there used to be a pre-capitalistic Capitalism; this is why there is some confusion among these issues. This means Capitalism does not consist of an limitless desire for the realisation of profit. The pursuit of money, the desire to become wealthy, the desire to acquire material goods and capital are all linked to the person and can be found in every phase of his life. If we were to regard such desires “Capitalism”, then this perception “belongs to the kindergarten of historical teaching”.


The difference is that in the Western Middle Ages, Capitalism took on the form of a rational organisation; it was the pursuit of profit, “within the framework of a permanent, rationalistically-organised capitalist business, with efficiency as its criterion”.
In the entire world and in every era, we meet tradesmen and merchants, small or great; but only in the West did a form of Capitalism develop “in types, forms and directions, which had never existed anywhere else until then”. Indeed, a particular form of Capitalism was developed in the West that consisted of “a rational, capitalistic organising of (technically) free labour”.


Quote:

The doctrine of predestination “in its reckless cruelty” - as Max Weber characteristically states - created in people the “feeling of an unheard-of inner loneliness of the individual person”. Man, finding himself in a tug-of-war between the uncertainty and the certainty of his salvation, understood full well that no one else could help him. Neither could any priest be of help, since each chosen one was able to understand God’s word in his heart, nor could the sacraments, since one can only receive the Grace of God through personal faith, nor the Church, since the condemned also belong to it, nor any God, since Christ too died for the chosen. The puritan rejected all of the above – even every religious ceremony by the grave – so that his faith would not be caught up with superstitions.

God’s transcendence led the puritan to a complete existential isolation, to a negative stance towards all the emotional elements that exist in civilization and religion, and it in fact became the root of the most pessimistic form of individualism. Even the Calvinist communication with God “would take place in profound spiritual isolation”.

This individualism, which became a way of life, significantly contributed to the creation of the spirit of Capitalism, since the Capitalist turns inwardly to himself; he shuts himself up hermetically inside himself and does not pay any attention to the others.


Quote:
Capitalism, as we shall see further on in our analysis, has been profoundly influenced by the metaphysics that prevailed in the Western world, since it stands out precisely for its metaphysical perspective. But even Socialism–Marxism, which was presented as anti-metaphysical, is in reality the offspring of Western metaphysics, since it upholds the existence of relentless laws that govern both History and the world, and which naturally govern all social phenomena and societal developments.

Beyond their theoretical similarities, both Capitalism and Marxism do not differ from each other in their sociological content. This can be seen from the fact that the basis of both is capital; the difference being that in the Capitalist system, the capital belongs to the few, while in the Marxist system it belongs to the State. In both theories, Man is dependent on the particular laws that determine the social setting.


I dunno, thought it was neat reading.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

10 Aug 2013, 1:01 am

Modern capitalism developed as a result of many factors, including the opening of new trading routes.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


TheValk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 644

10 Aug 2013, 4:14 am

Fr. Sergei Bulgakov claimed that socialism is a fitting system for Christianity, and he's definitely an expert on both. I still need to read his argumentation, but it's a view to remember.



Mike1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 710

10 Aug 2013, 7:52 am

Capitalism, socialism, and anarchy all result in corruption, because hierarchy is the natural power structure that ultimately takes over in all forms of government, unless another system is implemented in order to prevent it. The only way to create a government that doesn't ultimately end up serving only itself, is to create an artificial power structure that contradicts with the natural one, thus preventing it from taking over. The U.S. government is both hierarchical and heterarchial, and it was created partially heterarchial for the purpose of preserving the rights of its citizens. Maybe it isn't heterarchial enough though, considering that it seems to serve mostly itself and often goes against the will of its citizens. A system of government should be created that's heterarchial enough that it serves only the purpose of preventing the tyranny of the masses that would result from direct democracy. Only then can liberty, equality, and fairness be pursued to their fullest extent.



Last edited by Mike1 on 10 Aug 2013, 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

10 Aug 2013, 7:52 am

nominalist wrote:
Modern capitalism developed as a result of many factors, including the opening of new trading routes.

Like the Silk Road, perhaps?



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

10 Aug 2013, 11:54 am

Mike1 wrote:
Capitalism, socialism, and anarchy all result in corruption, because hierarchy is the natural power structure that ultimately takes over in all forms of government

Tell that to all the worker cooperatives across the globe. Anarchism/socialism is not utopian, you can go see it with your own eyes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_cooperatives

http://cultivate.coop/wiki/List_of_Worker_Cooperatives_in_the_United_States (great map data)



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

10 Aug 2013, 2:37 pm

It just strikes me as an effort to claim another laurel for western civilization. And maybe there is something to it. But capitalism is an indifferent child with no particular sympathy for it's parents. Modern capitalism will work with socialism, communism, fascism, dictatorships or democracies without regard to the level of individual liberty. It will leverage any advantage to maximize profits.

The auto capital of North America is not in the USA. It's in Ontario, Canada. Where the big auto makers wrote a letter praising the single payer health care system that gets those costs off of their backs. The manufacturing capital of the world is in highly repressive and corrupt China. For the cheap labor. And of course history will be absolutely filled with similar examples of capitalism's indifference to values beyond profit.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

10 Aug 2013, 3:10 pm

Fnord wrote:
Like the Silk Road, perhaps?


Yep, and the gradual acceptance of mercantilism.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

10 Aug 2013, 3:14 pm

TheValk wrote:
Fr. Sergei Bulgakov claimed that socialism is a fitting system for Christianity, and he's definitely an expert on both. I still need to read his argumentation, but it's a view to remember.


Quote:
Act 2:43 And fear came on every soul, many wonders also and signs were being done through the apostles,
Act 2:44 and all those believing were at the same place, and had all things common,
Act 2:45 and the possessions and the goods they were selling, and were parting them to all, according as any one had need.
Act 2:46 Daily also continuing with one accord in the temple, breaking also at every house bread, they were partaking of food in gladness and simplicity of heart,
Act 2:47 praising God, and having favour with all the people, and the Lord was adding those being saved every day to the assembly.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Aug 2013, 4:27 pm

Mike1 wrote:
Capitalism, socialism, and anarchy all result in corruption, because hierarchy is the natural power structure that ultimately takes over in all forms of government, unless another system is implemented in order to prevent it. The only way to create a government that doesn't ultimately end up serving only itself, is to create an artificial power structure that contradicts with the natural one, thus preventing it from taking over. The U.S. government is both hierarchical and heterarchial, and it was created partially heterarchial for the purpose of preserving the rights of its citizens. Maybe it isn't heterarchial enough though, considering that it seems to serve mostly itself and often goes against the will of its citizens. A system of government should be created that's heterarchial enough that it serves only the purpose of preventing the tyranny of the masses that would result from direct democracy. Only then can liberty, equality, and fairness be pursued to their fullest extent.


In short every political order should have a built in "dead man's switch" that zaps it every now and again.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Tree of Liberty is watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants. They are its natural manure.

ruveyn



albedo
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jul 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 293

10 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm

I don't buy into the predicable "Western" rhetoric. It is just a giant scapegoat for everything.

The word capitalism is overused. We don't really practice what we preach.

Of course the concept of property and by extension capital have existed to centuries, it even exists in our ape cousins.

However it is becoming meaningless, as we come up with ever more intangible, and improbable forms of property. We don't make use of limitations that would be useful in promoting competition. We allow people to 'own' ideas, potentially indefinitely, we allow companies that wouldn't otherwise exist be able to thrive.

People forget that there is no such thing as naturalistic economics. So any property law is different in different territories. The trading framework is defined in law. Or you could do what the vikings did...

The reality is most government is looking for an easy cash cow to provide jobs, so generally corporatism is given precedence over competition. These companies are given all sort of special treatment an legal protection, that other smaller companies don't get.

They need countries to exist, as they are only defined as cooperate entities by the law of these lands (but get to pick an choose which). However they are bigger than these countries.

The companies are not all efficient, they exist because a legal framework props them up. It is ironic that Mussolini's ideals, are heralded as a model for economic development.

I am a competitionist. Capital is necessary part of business and trade. However people wrongly assume that with capitalism, competition naturally follows. This actually makes little sense, because understandably you would expect a company to want to shut down the completion. Now some people argue this is a positive economic motor, but that is only the case, where new competition can easily start up.

Markets are not created equally, each market is different and has it is own quirks.

Some markets are naturally diverse, and have a lot of competition. This is due to he nature of the market, and inherent limitations that prevent only a small number of companies. (or one) to dominate.

However some markets, not only don't have this, but there is inexplicable protection to allow only a few companies to dominate. These market are inherently unstable because everything is dependent on these companies. It might not blow up for a while but when it does, the fallout is worse.

My view should got over our ideals and try to promote competition in as many markets as possible markets, but at the very least don't produce laws that do the opposite.

I think we need to stop being idealistic about these things, and more pragmatic. I happen to believe the cold war greatly stupefied people's views on the matter, on both sides. It is hard to have an intelligent conversation about it. It is the just the predictable, Socialist, Capitalist, Marxist, Nationalist, crap. They all think they have the perfect system, when reality is there is none. You have to treat it for what it is: a problem, where the solution is ongoing, dynamic and pragmatic promotion of competition.