Love/hate relationship between catholics and capitalism?

[filc]

@Leviathan

What you do is twist definitions of words

I do no such thing.

@Leviathan

o that you can reject all attacks on capitalism as attacks on “corporatism” and express support for “free market” ideology despite its utopianism and nonexistence outside of the textbook.

It’s to keep the argument from becoming semantical.

@Leviathan

We did not speak of free, voluntary, non-coercive trade; we spoke of capitalism.

When I speak of Capitalism that is what I am referring to. Historically it may not make sense to you but mechanically it’s entirely coherent and consistent. The structure, free movement, and allocation of capital.

@Leviathan

Freedom has about the same relevance to capitalism as neoclassical perfect competition does, as I mentioned.

Praxeologically speaking freedom is the fundamental, originating building block from which capitalism builds itself on. The structure of prices, Valuation, the ability to choose where to employ ones labor and capital. Everything stems from Human Action. I would love it if you read the first several chapters of Human Action and reflected on it’s argument. Ignoring the concepts of capitalism all together and just focused on Praxeology.

@Leviathan

What you call “socialism” is in fact a form of state capitalism comparable to Western capitalism in terms of its hierarchical structure and elitist minority control of productive resources that ought to be collective assets.

And we would be opposed to this. We call it socialism due to it’s mechanical structure and how it alters consumer sovereignty. You have seen my post where I attempted to fuse the concept of Fascism with Socialism.

But your post, and my response, have been nothing but semantics. You are angry at capitalism but your arguments are semantical, if anything has to do with rhetoric it’s that. We would be better of if we discussed key fundamental concepts on where we disagree. I’ve requested this of you in the past. You would prefer to debate over the definition of a term.

I think I can safely state though here that the majority of people on this forum would be against the type of capitalism you describe, and the type of capitalism you equally hate. Indeed some folks here have offered up suggestions to move away from this terminology, using volunteerism instead or something entirely different.

Posting cartoons like the one you did above proves my point that this is a semantics debate. It shows that the organized labor movement is more interested in arguing over key terms and definitions than it is about what the actual flaws are of those systems.

[nirgrahamUK]

hilarious cartoon. illustrating more economic illiteracy by the Kropotkin fan.

[Lilburne]

Leviathan, eastern orthodoxy existed for the centuries prior to the Reformation.

[Marko]

@Leviathan

There was no major Christian religious branch comparable to Roman Catholicism after the development of modern Christianity in the first few centuries A.D. Effectively all “Christians” were Catholics, with Catholicism simply being the main development of Christianity from its earliest form.

So because there was not enough difference for you you decided to refer to both as Catholics as if the whole Orthodoxy was a subset or Roman Catholicism. Why not use a neutral term like ‘effectively Catholic’, ‘Catholic-like’, ‘Catholic-Orthodox’ or ‘Orthodox-Catholic’ instead? Tut, tut, tut. Very insensitive of you.

[Vitor]

As a brazilian, I can affirm that catholicism never really got along with capitalism. Catholicism is about a central power, so the protestant had this great advantage. Even if some protestant church condemn intesrest rates, another one can have no problems about it.

And please, dont come up with “but there were some liberal thinkers in Spain bla, bla, bla”. There were some liberal thinkers in China too, this doesnt make the place an example of freedom.

[Merlin]

How is it that, among theists, Catholics are so well represented among libertarians? Even jewish profesers dont come close.

[Lilburne]

Merlin, I think the short answer is that Thomist Aristoteleanism is a great launching point for Misesian (and perhaps Randian and Rothbardian) teleological analysis.

[Merlin]

@Grayson Lilburne

Merlin, I think the short answer is that Thomist Aristoteleanism is a great launching point for Misesian (and perhaps Randian and Rothbardian) teleological analysis.

Damn you Martin Luther, damn you!