Comments on: The persistent Mormon academic criticism of ‘capitalism’

By: Revisionist

Revisionist — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:52:32 +0000

Personally, I think it is the academic world which most militates against the gospel. Where is there most derision of religion? In the academic world. Where do people think that they are learned, and therefore wise?
The academic world. Where do we have least success in winning new converts? Amongst PhD’s. Where is the infighting nasty, brutish and long? In the academic world.

I would not think of using those arguments to condemn the pursuit of knowledge. But people who live in glass houses…

By: Rameumptom

Rameumptom — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:08:57 +0000

One other note: capitalism is NOT equal to freedom. It is considered a requirement in order to have a free society (as we now know it), but in and of itself does not equate to freedom.
China practices a form of capitalism as we speak, and I highly doubt anyone would consider them free.

By: Rameumptom

Rameumptom — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:01:30 +0000

I think we also need to note that Bushman states the following: “There are strong reasons for embracing all three; the benefits of science, democracy, and capitalism are widely known. Are there also reasons for holding back our endorsement and of questioning their premises and functions?” There are benefits and reasons for embracing capitalism. But I think he’s saying that there is something better.

Many LDS academics realize that the “something better” will be a Zion-based society that will be different than the capitalism of Ayn Rand. There is a mutualism to it, as Bushman seeks, where everyone will seek the welfare of his neighbor (D&C 82).

Can that happen with capitalism? It can, but only with a Zion people. Otherwise, we end up with people who seek to consume their wealth upon their own lusts, and leads to a greater evil. That is part and parcel of why we’re experiencing the current economic crisis: people focused so much on greed and a quick return on their capitalist goods, that they let their brains fall out of their heads.

By: Ben Pratt

Ben Pratt — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:11:10 +0000

Bookslinger, I’ll admit that some of this coincides with a large gap in my education.

It seems to me that one thing Marx and I agree upon is that a person working as a cog in an industrialized economy has been swallowed up in something larger than himself, such that there is real risk of losing a bit of humanity. This is why I don’t have a problem with using robots to build things like cars. People should not be treated like robots, because they are so much more than their car-building ability. Not to mention robots are awesome.

Another thing lost when one becomes simply a cog equivalent is self-reliance, which is making a big comeback these days, mostly for green reasons. But the satisfaction that comes from eating food grown in one’s own backyard is lost to the factory worker who has income and time only for TV dinners.

That said, I don’t seem to agree with Marx’s suggestions, e.g. I think the Labor Theory of Value is rubbish, for reasons Mark D. suggested above. In addition, self-reliance and that je-ne-sais-quoi bit of humanity seem to be given up still when a proletariat-based dictatorship is established, so is it worth what is gained?

I welcome further education on this subject, especially if I’m totally off on something.

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:21:01 +0000

The comments in this thread illustrate a grave failure of our educational system. Woe is us.

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:34:29 +0000

Capitalism always contains the seeds of its own destruction.

The system is based on the premise of continued success of those who are successful in competition with others.

The problem is that once a particular entity becomes successful enough – and therefore powerful enough – it will immediately translate that power into the means of rigging the game to ensure its continued success. Thus an initially successful player can cement its own position. After that, it doesn’t matter if the player continues to be successful or not – because the game-rigging ensures continued dominance over other players.

Thus capitalism is always in a process of destroying itself.

By: R Biddulph

R Biddulph — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:55:55 +0000

I read an article which claimed self-identified conservatives contribute four times as much to charity as do self-identified liberals. Which group has the greater empathy, and self-sacrifice?

Why do those who advocate greater government control believe they are so much more empathetic? Has anyone looked at Obama and Biden’s charitable contributions?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:17:31 +0000

I don’t understand the temporal issue you are interjecting with “before.” Surely if I buy, transport goods, and then sell them I am laboring. Now the goods have to first be produced, it’s true. But so what? It’s not clear upon what justification their labor doesn’t matter. Further in what sense is the alienation occuring? If I buy beans (as I do) from a farmer and then pay someone to ship it to me, exactly why is the farmer alienated whereas the people driving the trucks, loading the boats, and so forth not alienated? And why are my employees alienated (which you’d argue) since they are part of the production of the chocolate but come temporally after the middlemen.

By: Brad Kramer

Brad Kramer — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:38:20 +0000

Clark,
There are no middlemen whose alienated labor can be devalued prior to the alienation of raw productive labor. The middle class — Marx’s bourgeoisie — is a product of well-developed capitalism capitalism, not a precursor to it. They cannot exist (and never have existed) without the alienation of proletarian labor. Indeed, they are defined by their relationship to surplus labor power, captured in the form of capital.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:38:08 +0000

Sorry for all the typos. I’m pretty exhausted – probably shouldn’t even be commenting.