Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why are Christianity & Cap'ism linked in the US?

Rate this topic


Hangnail

Recommended Posts

Before I ask my question, I’ve got to say that I just discovered this site three days ago and after spending a lifetime defending objectivism to a network a relativist friends, it’s great to finally find a place were I can quit defending the basics and instead gather more fruitful knowledge from discussion. I look forward to learning from all of you.

Now the question…

I’ve made an observation over the years, an observation which has always troubled me a bit. And I hope that others out there have made the same observation so I can cut straight to the question without having to back it up with data-points.

For some reason, it seems that Christians seem to make good capitalists, but this seems to be impossible when their religion preaches nothing but self-sacrifice and frankly is borderline communistic. (I’ll support this if anyone cares to doubt it.)

Nevertheless, our American conservative party is the first to defend individual rights and to shrink the government, but it’s also the first to try and break the separation of church and state. American liberals on the other hand are the first to try and eliminate religion from the state, but also the first to increase government hand outs.

I have always tried to grapple with the reality that most fiercely independent people tend to also be the most religious. I suppose the current situation with George Bush has made this issue even more apparent.

Anyone have any insightful thoughts on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I ask my question, I’ve got to say that I just discovered this site three days ago and after spending a lifetime defending objectivism [...] I look forward to learning from all of you.

Now the question…

[...]

For some reason, it seems that Christians seem to make good capitalists, but this seems to be impossible when their religion preaches nothing but self-sacrifice and frankly is borderline communistic.  (I’ll support this if anyone cares to doubt it.)

Nevertheless, our American conservative party is the first to defend individual rights and to shrink the government, but it’s also the first to try and break the separation of church and state. [...]

Welcome to ObjectivismOnline.net. It is the best Objectivist discussion group in the world.

To start off this discussion on common grounds, you might offer definitions of key terms: capitalism, conservatism, Christianity. Where possible, of course, you should use the definitions that Ayn Rand used. The context for discussion here is Objectivism, so we use Ayn Rand's definitions. If you disagree with those definitions, please say why.

P. S. -- One new thing to learn is the difference between Objectivism and objectivism. The correct spelling of the proper name for Ayn Rand's philosophy is "Objectivism." The word "objectivism" -- with a lowercase "o" -- names only a particular (though crucial) idea in the traditional history of philosophy, not a whole philosophy, and certainly not the one Ayn Rand created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max Weber (a German sociologist) was the first to coin the term "The Protestant Work Ethic," actually as the title of one of his books. As with most religions, differing beliefs on some issues lead to radically different actions in life. After a while, in the Anglo countries (which were largely Protestant) hard work seemed to separate them from the Catholic countries which have not developed as much. There is a discussion somewhere on the forum about the differences between mostly Catholic countries and largely Protestant ones.

I assume that Protestant groups believed being hard working and efficient was a means to be forgiven for one's sins. I think hard work was also explicitly championed by the Church for altruistic purposes, because it helps to elevate all people out of poverty.

As to whether they make good capitalists, I'd have to disagree. They make good conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone have any insightful thoughts on this?

Dr. John Ridpath has given lectures on "Religion and Capitalism." They include, apparently, discussion of the relation of Martin Luther, among others, and subsequent capitalism, to the extent it existed. The lectures, on audiotape, are available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore. Have you heard these lectures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, our American conservative party is the first to defend individual rights and to shrink the government,

As to this part of your post, I would suggest that today's Conservative party seems to be slipping away from both of these concepts. Government has grown under this administration, and, well, the Patriot Act. There is lipservice to the above concepts you mentioned, but they seem to be diminishing priorities for today's conservatives, or at least the many of those that are in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be the only place I can say, without fear of retribution, that Jesus was a communist. :) Christians claim to be capitalists, but they're not:

Have you heard the argument: "If 10 percent is good enough for God, it's good enough for the government." This is how I have heard many Christians defend tax cuts (but only to the 10% level).

The problem lies in their starting point for property rights. To an Objectivist, property rights are a manifestation of mans right to his life (and life on earth is his purpose). To a mystical Christian, mans life belongs to God (and life on earth is a test of mans worthiness to enter the kingdom of heaven). It doesn't take much from there to place the good of "society" or "All of Gods children" over that of the individual. Because, after all, "we're all children of God and He has written that we must help one another to be good people, like our savior Jesus Christ". So a good Christian will readily elevate altruistic policies above those that favor the individual.

E.g.: Tax money for foreign Aid.

Primemover is right on with the "sky daddy" concept. "But without God, you wouldn't have your talented mind... blah blah blah blah blah."

If you can stomach it, try tuning into a Christian talk show. I once heard a guest who had written a book about getting out of debt with Jesus or something. It was our responsibility to live within our means so we could give more to churches and charities because that is what Jesus would have wanted. SO you can get rich as long as you use it according to what Jesus preached. Not just to save it up so you can have a nice retirement (like I'm doing, heathen that I am).

The extent to which Christians support free market principles covers the spectrum of course, but the fundamental belief that your life and talent are by the grace of God ultimately undermines their embrace of full Laissez-faire at some point. The most free market Christian I knew ultimately asked me one time, "And your life is the result of"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree with ex_banana-eater: Christians don't make good capitalists; they make good conservatives.

I have a friend who deals with a lot of Russian firms in his business. He tells me that corruption is rampant, and he and his Russian partners believe it is the result of atheism: people don't feel any particular qualms about theft. So perhaps it's those basic Christian ethics that end up being capitalism-friendly, in spite of the Christian concern for the common good.

Ex_banana-eater,

You wrote: "I assume that Protestant groups believed being hard working and efficient was a means to be forgiven for one's sins."

Actually, no. Speaking as an ex-Protestant, I can tell you that this flies in the face of "sola fide" (faith alone), which is a hallmark of most Protestant denominations. There is, however, something called the "prosperity Gospel", which is believed by some Protestant denominations. It's pretty pathetic: basically, it means that if you work real hard and give to charity, you will be given material rewards right here on earth, fer sure. I guess that means that all those folks starving in Third World countries just weren't good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hangnail,

Have you read Ayn Rand's main essay in "The New Intellectual" where she speaks of "Atilla" and the "witch doctor".

Let me attempt the briefest of summaries, but as always only the original can tell you what Ms. Rand really said:

Given that the mind-body is accepted by most, the people of religion are happy to control the mind and leave the body (economics included) alone. On the other hand, left-wingers wants the mind to roam free while theyb tightly control its product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already, you guys have put out some really enlightening thoughts on the subject.

As an Objectivist, I’m constantly trying to poke holes in my beliefs to ensure that they are firmly attached to reality. Sometimes I feel a “disturbance in the force” when I see people who embrace collectivism succeeding at capitalism.

Let me provide another example… Japan.

I don’t think that anyone could disagree that Japan has distinguished itself in the world’s economy, Japanese products have been notoriously hard to complete with in the last two decades. All of our digital cameras and half our cars come from Japan. However, the Japanese are very socialistic. Let me give you some examples.

1. There is currently a recession in Japan, the unemployment rate is rising and to combat this problem the government has instituted work share programs. This means that workers for the greater good of the whole give up half their pay, work half the hours, and let someone else work the other half. This creates two jobs where there was previously only one.

2. Employers in Japan are expected to employ people for life. Firings are extremely unusual.

3. Management is determined by age, promotions are based on seniority.

Now these are just a few examples and although I’ve visited Japan, I haven’t lived there. And perhaps they are more individualistic than I give them credit for. (After all, you could make America seem very socialistic by describing our tax rate, health system, and retirement policies to someone who has never been here) But my experience in the short time I spent there was of an atheistic culture that nevertheless is founded on the concept of self sacrifice.

So the question remains… how does Japan compete so well? How is it that collectivists could play the capitalism game so well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea is that you split your faculties. Fifi hit it right on.

In order to be successful earning money there are certain principles of business you must follow (of which I'm not particularly familiar, not being a business major). But matters of the spirit, of one's intellectual, supposedly transcend business. You see, they adopt two polar philosophies for two different aspects of living. In America it's a rampant disease.

If you want to understand the characteristics and consequences of such a split, I recomend paying special attention to Henry Rearden and his retlations with his family the next time you read Atlas Shrugged. Francisco also has some things to say to Rearden about the whole situation at Rearden's anniversary party.

Aurelia :nuke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question remains… how does Japan compete so well?  How is it that collectivists could play the capitalism game so well?

The Japanese are clever protectionists. Their government helps companies avoid competition within Japan, leaving them relatively free to export their best and lowest cost products to foreign markets.

For example, due to high import duties and myriad other import regulations, Japanese automobile companies face very little international competition within the Japanese market. This allows the Japanese manufacturers to concentrate their best workers on one shift. The output from that shift is the highest quality and lowest cost -- and this is what they export. They sell the lower quality, higher cost output from the other shifts to the Japanese market.

When it comes to wealth creation, the Japanese economy does not match the U.S. In 2003, the per capita gross domestic product of the U.S. was 35% higher than Japan, $37,800 versus $28,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Japanese are clever protectionists. Their government helps companies avoid competition within Japan, leaving them relatively free to export their best and lowest cost products to foreign markets. 

If this is true (and I'm not asserting that it isn't) I wonder why Japan hasn't been prosecuted by the WTO for unfair trade practices. I think the US has done a pretty good job of keeping subsidies out of the autimotive industry, if this is true, we would have a very strong case against Japan.

Thanks for the statistic about GDP, that will help me sleep better at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hangnail,

A few comments on the responses:

You wrote: "'magic sky daddy' - I love that. I'm going to be using that one for a long time."

Why? Insulting people is easy, fun, and may make you feel good about yourself, but if you want to degrade your cedibility in an argument, there's no better way to diss yourself than to diss your opponents with phrases like that. Simply use reason, and you'll be better off.

Fifi, you wrote: "Given that the mind-body is accepted by most, the people of religion are happy to control the mind and leave the body (economics included) alone."

"Mind-body"---what? Are you missing a word? Otherwise I don't quite understand what is being said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Insulting people is easy, fun, and may make you feel good about yourself, but if you want to degrade your cedibility in an argument, there's no better way to diss yourself than to diss your opponents with phrases like that. Simply use reason, and you'll be better off.

I would only use that in the context of a discussion with a close friend who would not be offended by the comment. As far as strangers are concerned, I would stick with the logical approach.

Humor does have a way of painting a picture of a concept that is much easier and more accessible to the average joe than quoting Atlas Strugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Given that the mind-body is accepted by most, the people of religion are happy to control the mind and leave the body (economics included) alone."

While I would agree with this to an extend, I think it goes a little deeper than that. I do not know a single religious nut that thinks abortion should be legal, nor do I know any liberal who thinks non-multiculturalism is a good thing.

In the end, Collectivism is Collectivism, no matter what color crayon you're using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humor does have a way of painting a picture of a concept that is much easier and more accessible to the average joe than quoting Atlas Strugged.

In no way whatsoever does humor paint a picture of a concept. In the first place, a concept is a mental integration, as Ayn Rand explains in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 13. A concept is not a picture. Anyone who tries to think in pictures is inviting a cognitive trainwreck. The anti-abortion fanatics are a classic example of that approach.

Further, offering a "picture of a concept" versus "quoting Atlas Shrugged" is holding a false dichotomy. Another approach is to discuss the issue with the person. Find out what the person's current beliefs are and why he holds them. Most importantly, find out what method he uses: reason or something else such as mysticism, reliance on faith-based authority or what other people believe.

If he uses reason, then there is a basis for discussion for years to come. If he doesn't, there is no justification, generally, to keep talking with him -- unless one is doing research for a book on philosophical pathology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In no way whatsoever does humor paint a picture of a concept. In the first place, a concept is a mental integration, as Ayn Rand explains in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 13. A concept is not a picture. Anyone who tries to think in pictures is inviting a cognitive trainwreck. The anti-abortion fanatics are a classic example of that approach.

Ahh... I seem to have made a mistake. I used a term that has very specific meaning in Objectivism for my own purposes. Thanks for the quote, that book is next on my list.

Let me rephrase my statement.

Humor has an ability to illustrate abstract ideas to another person in a manner that is more easily digestible. I believe it is possible to make a statement that is both humorous and still rational.

"magic sky daddy" is quite similar to "our heavenly father." The second statement is said with conviction, the first sounds silly. But the meaning is the same. This to me is a powerful tool for communicating how a statement can be completely arbitrary. And I've noticed in the past that if the listener is entertained by the analogy, they are more likely to understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hangnail,

I think humor can be a useful vehicle to convey ideas---at the right time and in the right place.

You wrote: "And I've noticed in the past that if the listener is entertained by the analogy, they are more likely to understand it."

If your listener is entertained by that analogy, then I'd posit that they're already favorable to your way of thinking to begin with, and you're preaching to the choir. If you want theists to "understand" your position, then using this analogy is counterproductive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

I assumed that it was probably "dichotomy" that had been left out. However, I wanted to make sure because it's never wise to make assumptions.

Having cleared that up, I should, in all fairness, point out that not all (or even most) religions posit a dichotomy between mind and body.

Even if that were the case, however, I don't think that such a dichotomy would account for why capitalist countries tend to be Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being an ex-Christian, I can comment that the term "Christian" is a very loose term in this country. There are so many denominations of Christianity that they only resemble each other remotely. Most "Christians" only give lip service to their philosophy, for one hour on Sunday mornings, and then spend the other 167 hours of the week chasing after material goods and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. Capitalist). The more Christianity is integrated into their lives, the more time they devote to the Christian philosophy, the less time they devote to the pursuit of their own happiness, the less they are Capitalist. This is one of the reasons it is a little disturbing to see the rise of the Religious Right. The Christian denomination I came from did not tolerate the pursuit of material goods. We believed this was considered "the love of the World, and anyone who had the love of the world, the love of the Father (magic sky daddy!) was not in him". I believe true Christianity will lead to material suicide. Look what it did to the Roman Empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...