The American Christian Capitalist

[MikeSC]

I've never understand how this position can, logically, exist.

Let's take it as an axiom that Christianity is true.

To be a capitalist means to support the right of the European monarchs to sieze land, and resources, in the original distribution of wealth. To be a Christian capitalist means to believe that the monarchy had the Divine Right that they claimed, or else surely their forceful seizure and distribution of God's creation held in common to turn it into private wealth would be considered illegitimate, right?

To be an American is to be a rebel against the monarchy. If the monarchs had the Divine Right, if they truly were God's representative as they claimed, then to deny this and rebel would be to rebel against God. The whole country, in God's eyes, would be illegitimate, right?

Any Christians here? I'm not trying to assault your religion or draw religious people into any kind of trap, I'm genuinely interested in how this is reconciled.

[Kronos]

What a crude intellect is good for.-- The Christian church is an encyclopaedia of prehistoric cults and conceptions of the most diverse origin, and that is why it is so capable of proselytizing: it always could, and it can still go wherever it pleases and it always found, and always finds something similar to itself to which it can adapt itself and gradually impose upon it a Christian meaning (http://islander.whidbey.net/%7Edcloud/library/tk030004.htm). It is not what is Christian in it, but the universal heathen character of its usages (http://www.kosone.com/people/ocrt/santeri.htm)- NietzschePrecisely because of the ambiguity of Christian principles and tenants, it can just about be applied anywhere. It is an amorphous blob of nonsense that can be adjusted, readjusted, added to and subtracted from to conform to any intent....even in extreme criminal instances, for example.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I don't quite see how this question is relevent as there's not many monarchies around anymore unless you're asking it in a historical context.

[synthesis]

I've never understand how this position can, logically, exist.

Let's take it as an axiom that Christianity is true.

To be a capitalist means to support the right of the European monarchs to sieze land, and resources, in the original distribution of wealth. To be a Christian capitalist means to believe that the monarchy had the Divine Right that they claimed, or else surely their forceful seizure and distribution of God's creation held in common to turn it into private wealth would be considered illegitimate, right?

To be an American is to be a rebel against the monarchy. If the monarchs had the Divine Right, if they truly were God's representative as they claimed, then to deny this and rebel would be to rebel against God. The whole country, in God's eyes, would be illegitimate, right?

Any Christians here? I'm not trying to assault your religion or draw religious people into any kind of trap, I'm genuinely interested in how this is reconciled.

Actually, both capitalists and communists generally distinguish feudal monarchies from "capitalism" as a process or state of being.

As Marxists, we consider feudalism to be on a linear line of "modes of production" that comes before capitalism, which in turn precedes socialism and finally communism.

Feudalism is based on agriculture and is the "dictatorship of the aristocracy", while capitalism is based on industrialization and is the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".

Capitalism as we know it rose in response to feudalism. The Enlightenment was an entirely bourgeois phenomenon. Many of the original capitalists, like Adam Smith, opposed the monarchy on the grounds of principle, while the bourgeois class itself adopted their rhetoric in the process of overthrowing the aristocracy and establishing their own power.

So your question is a little moot. Capitalists will tell you that they cannot be conflated with the monarchy, and well-read Marxists will agree, although for different reasons.

[MikeSC]

I think you guys have missed my point-

Capitalism relies on land, wealth and resources being taken and distributed to become private property. In our modern societies, though we're no longer feudalist our private property is still based in this seizure and distribution by the monarchy. A guy bought land from a guy who bought the land from a guy who bought the land from a guy who was given it by the monarch who seized it claiming Divine Right.

For private property to be legitimate, a Christian would have to believe in the monarch's Divine Right to claim creation as his own. For America to be legitimate, a Christian would have to believe that this Divine Right was false and that they had the right to rebel against the monarchy. The position of "American Christian Capitalist" seems uniquely impossible.

[John Lenin]

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/148033/republican_jesus2.jpg




http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RKVkyukVXrY/RduaoDjX6uI/AAAAAAAAAFo/N6dIElliHNM/s320/lovethyneighbor.jpg

[John Lenin]

http://images8.cafepress.com/product/20556398v14_350x350_Front.jpg

[synthesis]

For private property to be legitimate, a Christian would have to believe in the monarch's Divine Right to claim creation as his own.

Why?

[MikeSC]

Why?

Because otherwise the monarchs were just guys who exercised their free will by pretending to be God's representatives, and claiming Creation as their plaything- Private Property relies on Divine Right for its legitimacy, otherwise it's just a guy forcefully taking resources previously held in common to make it private.

[synthesis]

Well, you don't have to support a monarchy to be Christian. And private property has always relied on force for legitimacy.

The real answer to your question, however, is here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

[MikeSC]

Well, you don't have to support a monarchy to be Christian.

Yeah, that's the point- to be an American is to rebel against a false monarchy. To be a capitalist is to accept and enforce the monarch's distribution of wealth, which they legitimised by claiming to have the Divine Right. I don't see how an American Christian can support and enforce the forceful theft of creation by the monarchs they deem to be false prophets. In fact, it's rare to hear of any Christian deeming the monarchy to have genuine Divine Right.

[synthesis]

I don't see how an American Christian can support and enforce the forceful theft of creation by the monarchs they deem to be false prophets.
I don't think they do.

[MikeSC]

I don't think they do.

If they support private property and capitalism- then I'd have thought it's inherent that they do. If you decree someone to own something legitimately, then they must have acquired it from someone who owned it legitimately, etc. Back to the monarch's distribution.

[synthesis]

If they support private property and capitalism- then I'd have thought it's inherent that they do. If you decree someone to own something legitimately, then they must have acquired it from someone who owned it legitimately, etc. Back to the monarch's distribution.

We just took the monarch's Divine Right, gave it to ourselves, and called it Manifest Destiny. Trust me, there's no point in exposing logical fallacies and internal contradictions to the people you're addressing here.

[MikeSC]

We just took the monarch's Divine Right, gave it to ourselves, and called it Manifest Destiny. Trust me, there's no point in exposing logical fallacies and internal contradictions to the people you're addressing here.

Fair enough :) That wiki link is... a bit unsettling, to be honest. I'd heard of the phrase before but didn't know what it actually was.

[RGacky3]

I just want to point out, that in my experience, Capitalists are generally not very religious at all, they don't need to be, their have their paredise already. Politicians generally use religion as a rallying cry, so trying to reconsile it is pointless.

[John Lenin]

... Christianity died with Christ