Unless you are willing to divorce Capitalism from Freedom, you will be unable to propose something better. Whatever “better” you come up with or propose has to be based on the willingness found in people’s hearts, not on government coercion. In other words, a system that is Free is a system that cannot be equal in the sense that you are complaining about. It’s one thing to have equal opportunities and it’s another thing to have equal salaries, compensation, housing and transportation. I want no part of THAT kind of equality. I’ve lived it most of my life, and I do not need to experience it again in order to conclude AGAIN that is crap.

Do you agree or disagree that capitalism turns us into machines just as much as socialism and communism?

I most definitely agree, but I would say that it doesn’t have to.

There are alternatives way to live within a capitalistic society. You are trying one of those alternatives right now with your shared living “experiment.”

Unless you are willing to divorce Capitalism from Freedom, you will be unable to propose something better.

I don’t think that it is necessarily about proposing something better, but instead it is a question about how we live within the framework that creates the machines. What is our response to that politically? Personally? Spiritually? Communally? There are alternatives (many of which I completely ignore to further become a fully operating machine of capitalism), but they are not easy in the current society that most of us live in.

It’s one thing to have equal opportunities and it’s another thing to have equal salaries, compensation, housing and transportation.

Well…first of all, I am pretty sure that many of us would agree with you - we are not looking for a pure utopia where every one has perfect equality. But the one of the major problems with the current state of this country that I live in is that there is not equal opportunity.

i’m not looking to make everyone equal. i’m happy with a free market. those who want to work and make something of themselves are free to do that. those who don’t will obviously be left behind.

it is just my assertion that we can not totally ignore those left behind. perhaps its by their own choice. but perhaps its because of layers and layers on years of years of junk. is it not our social responsibility to look towards this inequality and say that is unacceptable. to open our arms in christian love to help pull people up? you’re absolutely right it should not be government coercion or regulated. it should be humanity’s response . . . the response of those who “have” . . . to reach back to help those who “have not”.

i’m not talking about freedom. i’m talking about responsibility. and i’m saying that our decisions and lives are much more connnected than most would like to admit. it is time for those of us who “have” to challenge the system that creates “have-nots”. we do this by challenging big corporations who prey on the naivety (even ignorance) of those who don’t know any better. or who are so embedded in debt and poverty that they can’t see clearly. it is time that we challenge the process where a child in another country can make a toy in a factory/sweatshop for a child in this country. it is time that we quit complaining about what a homeless person might do with $5 (buy alcohol) when we buy $5 lattes from children and women who aren’t paid a fair wage in colombia. it’s time we become the voice for those who have none. i’m not looking to the government to find this voice. i’m looking to christians to articulate the groanings and whispers from those who are empty. and who are empty because we have corporations who would rather throw $10,000 a head dinners for a tax right off then feed their neighbor. who would rather drive $50,000 suvs than provide bicycles for those living in remote villages.

i’m not advocating communism virgil. i’m just saying capitalism without a moral conscience is just as corrupt as stalin or lenin.

i’m not advocating communism virgil. i’m just saying capitalism without a moral conscience is just as corrupt as stalin or lenin.

Ok, fair enough. Then we are discussing poor customer service within the capitalistic enterprise rather than shortcomings of capitalism. I am saying that because generally speaking, capitalism and moral conscience go hand in hand because they HAVE to.

Poor or immoral treatment of a customer in a purely free market will result in the loss of that customer and collapse of the market, therefore by putting profit first one automatically HAS to put the customer first…it’s a given…a basic requirement of the paradigm. Once we understand those basic principles and decide to become deeply involved at a personal level as Christians (without dragging the government in) we can greatly improve the perception of the customer and perceive “customer” as “person” rather than dollar bills walking around. Therefore we can eventually win on both fronts: financially and as followers and icons of Christ.

i don’t think it’s an automatic connection that profit and customer service are related. there are plenty of companies that have horrible customer service yet continue to make ungodly amounts of profit. try exchanging something at target. canceling your directv account or modifying your telephone account.

and i strongly disagree that moral conscience and capitalism go hand in hand. i agree that we need to move towards viewing the “customer” as a human and not a dollar sign. but what happens in a capitalistic society when humans continue to get treated as dollar signs. what then of ours and their moral conscience?

I may be stoned for posting this quote on here, but what the hell.

“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.” Marx and Engels

“Poor or immoral treatment of a customer in a purely free market will result in the loss of that customer and collapse of the market, therefore by putting profit first one automatically HAS to put the customer first…it’s a given…a basic requirement of the paradigm.”

I would say the above statement is what capitalism is in theory. Unfortunately, that is all it is, just theory. Just like the ol’ saying that “Communism only works in theory” while true, so it also goes with capitalism. There are too many corporations with shitty customer service that continue to exist simply because they know that regardless of what they do, they are big enough to survive. Look at Target, Home Depot, your big grocery chains like Stop-N-Shop, or any of the big power, gas and electric companies that probably have a monopoly on the energy market which serves your home. Can anyone really look at these places and say that they have exceptional customer service? Can anyone share a personal story about one of these entities wherein they received some great customer service? Honestly. I’m open here.

I’d say also in capitalistic theory, that the workers should be the ones who are in control because they are the ones who choose which companies to work for. Unfortunately, there are millions in the work force today who choose to work for corporations that pay non-living wages simply because they can’t get a living-wage job. And I’m willing to bet that the corporations who employ these people know very well that the people who work for them don’t have many options. To this I’ll simply say “To those who have been given much, much will be required.” And that’s a moral value which stands antithetically toward the principles of free market growth.

Capitalism is one of the best economic systems mankind has yet devised, but it needs checks and balances just like any other system. Unchecked capitalism run amuck and without restriction (or what is sometimes called fascism) can be just as oppressive as unchecked socialism (or dictatorial communism). And i don’t think anyone would advocate for either of these options.

Josh - this is the problem with what you are proposing man. On one hand you are saying you are not proposing communism or socialism and on another hand you have people quoting Marx and Engels to support what you say. You don’t find that interesting? I do.

there are plenty of companies that have horrible customer service yet continue to make ungodly amounts of profit.

They do so because the government has gotten involved in the market and spoiled the balance that freedom would have instilled into the market. Almost every market in which customer service is terrible is NOT a free market and the government is heavily regulating it. Telcos, banks, etc…you name it. Service sucks and entry into the market is barred by the fact the government stepped in either years ago or still does, barring others from entering the market, so you have a government-maintained monopoly, and you are confusing that monopoly with free enterprise, when the two have nothing to do with each other.

The best example I can think of is the long distance market. As soon as the government stopped regulation and open the market to pure competition the prices collapsed and all the consumers benefited greatly, to the point that voip calls can be made free of charge virtually anywhere in the world. And of course, governments are noticing this and beginning to regulate the voip markets because they are missing out on revenues.

The problem is not with the economic system; the problem is with the politicians getting involved where they don’t belong.

just because i do a post. and someone happens to quote marx, does not mean i’m a communist. no more than it means i’m the sum of what you comment. the words i think we look into communism, socialism, or anarchy have yet to come out of my mouth. if anything i continue to say that i’m a capitalist. and i continue to say that i’m not happy with the current state of capitalism without these checks and balances that james so intelligently pointed out.

in reference to cory’s quote, while i strongly and inherently disagree with marx’s theories. i happen to agree with the specific quote that corey used. that in a bourgeouis society (which i take to mean either capitalism, communism, or socialism - anywhere the classes have drifted towards the bourgeouis - which i believe we have) the “living person” is dependent and has no individuality - IN MOST CASES, NOT ALL. walk into any office space of a major corporation and tell me what type of individuality the dispensable pieces of the machine in the cubicles have? they have no voice in the company. they can not challenge the system. and if they stepped away or were fired, another replaceable part would be brought in and nothing would be lost. this applies for grunt workers, middle management, and even the executives. only in a few cases does the loss of an upper executive damage or hurt a company. so with that particular quote i find much truth.

in the same way that there are things that carl sagan says that i agree with. things that derrida says that have some resonance. and things that string theorists say that seem plausible.

i’m not advocating communism or socialism. i am advocating taking deeper look at what our capitalism has begun. not only to those who do the “producing-profit making” but to those who have become the “consumer”. if that has turned me into a communist all of a sudden, then i must have missed my members card in the mail.

i didn’t title this “doing away with capitalism” or “let’s all poop on capitalism and get furry hats”. i titled it reimagining capitalism. which means to me let us christians reimagine our role in this system and live our lives not based off of profit. meaning we shouldn’t practice economics like wal-mart and home depot.

Agreed. I could drop a Buddhist proverb promoting peace and condemning murder into this space if i wanted to. I think while we would all agree with this proverb in principle, it wouldn’t make us Buddhists, or advocates for conversion to the Buddhist faith.

That said, (and without being a pure communist) I think the Marx and Engels quote holds a good deal of truth and is very relevant to our conversation.

“The problem is not with the economic system; the problem is with the politicians getting involved where they don’t belong.”

Do you really think capitalism has a dearth of problems? Just because you don’t acknowledge them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

The fact is, people (not all of them, but enough) are necessarily going to exploit one another if given the opportunity. I’ve already said this, but it was conveniently ignored in the first post on this topic. People have proved time and time again that if they can hurt someone else (or 100’s of someone elses) to make a buck, it will be done by someone. And when they do that, it makes all the honest people trying to be fair have that much harder time to compete. This is why if you work in a factory and your hand gets crushed on the job by faulty machinery, you can’t simply be fired. Dang government getting in the way of the free market! Fire his ass! It’ll make my widget cost .0001 cents less!

I think its so entertaining that the government keeps coming up again and again. Josh, while letting his thoughts meander into more theoretical economic topics in this last post, is basically asking personal questions. He’s asking about his own business. He’s asking if he should shop at Wal-Mart. He’s asking if his behavior and ability to have what he wants is built by oppressed people. Sure he talks about the system that makes these questions worth considering, but at the end of the day, he’s looking for definable actions that he/us can do. That’s how I see it and perhaps I’m wrong, if so Josh feel free to pwn me.

In fact, if we look back at the history of these posts, the first person to start up on the government was you, Virgil. I’m not trying to defend the government, but by focusing the discussion on it, you’re managing to miss the entire point of Josh’s post. He’s not trying to tell you who to vote for. He’s trying to get people to at least consider all the events involved in the production of a good or service, which could include the work environment of the makers, the company’s other actions, the company’s history, etc. Sure the government has major problems, but harping on it every comment is no more beneficial than emergents crying about mega churches or evangelicals crying about emergent theology.

Why are none of these discussions beneficial? Because no one ever manages to convince anyone else that they’re right (*especially* on the internet). They just manage to get something off their chest and perhaps stir some people up to have their own rants. I think we should focus more on things that are actionable, that we can start doing today.

That said, I’m being somewhat hypocritical in saying that by running my mouth this whole post for no real benefit, so let’s see what I can add that will actually be useful: desire for a diamond is a artificial want created by advertising. While no one can be completely sure of how their own particular diamond was mined, the history of diamond mining has led to wars, health problems, and all sorts of other social ills. They’ve managed to produce a material that is cheaper than diamonds, has a higher refractive index (more brilliant), see Wikipedia:Moissanite. If you’re planning on getting engaged, at least consider this alternative to a diamond. Had I been less ignorant at the time, my wife would be wearing a ring with this material in it.

As a somewhat entertaining side note: please discuss this with the recipient of the jewelry before making a purchase. Buying a “fake” (oh noes! it’s fake!) stone deceitfully is a great way to ruin a relationship.

At the end of the day some people, either not caring or not willing to pay more, will simply reject this line of thinking and continue to buy at whatever the lowest price they think they can get. And that’s fine.

thanks for the resources eli. i’ll check them out. as a side note, i’m not looking to revolt or wanting to revolt. reimagine is a much more hopeful and peaceful and constructive word. and revolts usually end the same way they begin . . . violently.

eric,
nice thoughts. especially on the diamond industry. and yes all of this came about from my personal thinking as i started a business. what would distinguish and keep me from becoming a top heavy organization with a lack of customer service and a concern for only profit. hopefully later today i’ll post my constructive plan for that.

Josh,

I look forward to your thoughts on how to grow a business without becoming top heavy or without poor customer service and whatnot. In my opinion, growth is the most difficult aspect to wrestle with concerning capitalism, simply because if you don’t have growth, you don’t have capitalism. Therefore, those who try to implement moral principles into business ethics are constantly challenged to keep up the integrity as they go. You must grow in order to stay afloat, and as you grow power is easier to exert.

The growth principle in and of itself is the foundational element of this system, and it is one which makes capitalism an economic system of greed. Looking forward to your thoughts.

I tend to think of this issue in taking a bit different tack. To be honest with you, I think Jesus would say some relatively benign things about the economic system today, because he wasn’t seeking to provide a macro (or micro) economic model for his society in his lifetime. He was where he was, and we are where we are.

But he didn’t leave it at that, so the wealthy people of his day or the wealthy people of our day could justify our greed and materialism in some silly way like we’re “meeting people where they’re at” or “it’s ok to be wealthy.” No, one thing Jesus DID address scathingly and systematically was the expectations of God’s people; that they would so internalize his teachings that they would serve as a counterpoint to any economic system they were a part of.

Now, given, the model we have from Jesus and the early church looks a heck of a lot more like socialism than anything else, but it ultimately is a model of radical generosity and radical love combined with a radical commitment to meeting the needs of the world. The principle wasn’t to “sell everything you have and give it to the poor,” it was to create a core community of folks where every need was being met;

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

We live in a system of capitalism. Fine. But these verses underscore the importance of two things for me:
1) the need for a local community of followers of Jesus incarnating the gospel, where we get a chance to put this teaching into practice (because this is an essential part of the church), and
2) this local community will have no needs. We should ASSUME this as a foundational goal for the church. I subvert my wants for my brother or sister’s needs. Period. If I have to sell my XBox or HDTV to achieve this, then I do. No questions asked. I think all of us should make a laundry list of the things we have that are necessary and unnecessary, and have a willingness to sell those possessions which are not necessary for the sake of the kingdom.

Imagine, if you could, loads of these communities of caring and great love existing all over the world and how much the lack of need within them would testify to the gospel. Jesus dealt with the people of God FIRST and CENTRALLY. If we are not meeting the needs in our local community, we are sinning. Pure and simple. And Jesus definitely wasn’t benign about that. I cannot be comfortable in my relative wealth if a brother or sister is suffering under my very nose.

After we establish this, then we can talk about what that looks like outside the walls of the local church community, I think.

Capitalism is quite simply an economic system with great potential as well as great flaws. Christfollowers subvert it by their very presence, as they do with socialism, communism, and any other economic model.