I'm sitting in a class right now and the professor just quoted an author I have just recently started reading. He said not to put the quote in my blog... Then I raised my hand and said, "Did you say not to put this in my blog?" and he said, "Just don't say, Pastor ________ said, that ____________ ____________ said,
"The problem with Capitalism is that is makes shitty people." "
So, I will just include the quote.
Thoughts???
14 comments:
Two thoughts:
1. What we see in america isn't true capitalism. It has a base of capitalism, but is so regulated that government interaction is anything but laissez faire. And with all the buyouts, we're growing closer to socialism everyday.
2. Economic methods don't make shitty people. People are shitty regardless.
1. He was talking about the global economy (Both the speaker and the speaker he was referencing). America is still capitalistic, as are many other countries.
2. Economic methods can exacerbate. I think people are awesome regardless. And, shitty regardless - aren't people more complex than that?
Then I vehemently disagree that any economic model is the genesis of shitty people. That's the same as saying Guns kill people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. More narrowly, shitty people kill people.
Capitalism, in a true form, is more enabling of growth and personal achievement than any other through the balance of risk versus reward. It asserts personal responsibility and allows the person to dictate, within the limits of talent and desire, the height of their achievement. Likewise it also allows, if not guarantees, a level of failure. (In America, we are seeing yet another retardation of Capitalism at the moment with all the bailouts. Nothing is too big to fail and personal responsibility is meaningless.)
Are there numerous ways that the person's achievement can be derailed? Sure, that's the risk side of it.
And along the way, there are people you encounter who are just jerks. They screw you over. Hence my statement that people are shitty regardless. And no matter who you are, you possess the capacity of that shittiness.
That was actually me writing...
I think I like the two posts together because you're nuancing your definition of capitalism, capitulating a little with the quote - then disagreeing with it.
Thank you for the post. The second helped me understand the post.
Both were probably necessary because my post was so short!
I'd say it's about 70/30 capitalism/socialism.
Theoretically, capitalism functions as a system entirely dependent on community, and in which success is infinite. Meaning, there is not a finite amount of success/wealth/prosperity that must be fought over, in which either the strongest or most devious is the victor. In essence, it's a trade-based economy, in which money is simply a token to represent items of variable value. At it's core, it's a basic barter system, in which both sides must agree to the trade, and both sides are responsible for their own decisions when trading.
The problem with the original statement is that it's logically faulty, because it works backwards. There are people who behave badly. Some of them are capitalists. Therefore, capitalism must cause people to behave badly. However, that's a blatant anthropomorphism, because it's just a philosophy and can't make anyone do anything.
In theory, you can succeed in capitalism without stomping on anyone. There are many examples of this happening. The reality is, people can do what they want, and they sometimes choose to behave badly. Those who are successful will be criticised. Sometimes, it's true, and at that point it's easier to say, "The system you gave me failed," than to say, "I chose to use the system to abuse other people."
Not only that, but because it is consumer-based, the big guys may run the companies, but the little guys really decide who sinks or swims, in the long run. People give up their power too easily.
The truth is, capitalism doesn't make people jerks any more than socialism or communism or almost any form of government. They can all flourish when entered into and maintained voluntarily and executed well. The main difference is, capitalism takes into account the nature of man, and will allow people to fail without forcing them to leave or forcing anyone else to keep them afloat, so to speak. And, it in no way prohibits compassion.
The two of you are arguing with Time Magazine's 2001, "Best Theologian in America"... Thoughts???
I like Hauerwas, but he's too simplistic on this stuff.
I never know if you want the immediate thoughts or the developed thoughts. My first three thoughts were, in this order:
1. ...so...I don't think that changes much of anything, since I was interacting with an idea..
2. at least he didn't run for president
3. I wonder if the pope has ever read Time Magazine?
nice Robbie. I think it was a passing comment at a conference...
I agree with comment #2 by anonymous #!. That was my initial, gut-level reaction to the quote. I'm too tired to write more.
I might add to the quote that at the same time shitty people make for shitty capitalism.
Capitalism rewards greed, it is an unfortunate reality. If all people were perfect and not greedy it would make a beautiful system to reward people for how hard they work.
In the same way if communism was full of perfect people who were not lazy everyone would do their fair share and all would be rewarded equally.
In the abstract capitalism rewards the greedy side of people, who stand to gain more and communism rewards lazy people who gain less despite their lack of output.
In my opinion the only conclusion to be drawn from that is that both "create" shitty people. Or more precisely both reward types of shitty behavior.
Capitalism was created by man, it is imperfect. Similarly all other economic systems were created by man and they will be imperfect. My conclusion would be that neither capitalism nor communism, nor any other system creates shitty people. They are merely populated by them.
It is undoubtedly true that all other things being equal the greedier of two people will likely outperform the less greedy person in a capitalist society like ours. I would posit that such anomalies are inherent in all man made systems, that the greedy are an easy target (because they are always others. Who actually claim to be greedy Gordon Gekko excluded?)
blah blah blah...our society rewards greed, but that greed stems from our sinful nature, not our economic system...though our economic system makes us feel ok about it...peace out.
Sounds like either Jason Wilson... Which one?
The law school one
Post a Comment