Why are capitalists so religous?

[PossiblyLeft]

Does the bible mention economic systems?

[Искра]

Does the bible mention economic systems?
Who said that capitalists are religious?
They have different opinions regarding religion.

[Comrade B]

Capitalists often use religion as a tool to keep the proletariat content with simply living through their troubles. It is rare that they actually follow the principles of the religions they claim to advocate.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Jesus was a capitalist, didn't you get the memo?

[Искра]

Jesus was a capitalist, didn't you get the memo?
Jesus Radicals says that he was an anarchist... :laugh:

[RedRise]

Jesus Radicals says that he was an anarchist...

Personally I agree with that one. Most religions, but christianity in particular, are actually in favor of left-wing politics. Capitalists cling to religion to make themselves look good or holy or whatever, especially in places where your piety affects your popularity.

[bricolage]

Jesus Radicals says that he was an anarchist... :laugh:

Chavez says he was a revolutionary;


Jesus accompanied me in difficult times, in crucial moments. So Jesus Christ is no doubt a historical figure—he was someone who rebelled, an anti-imperialist guy. He confronted the Roman Empire.... Because who might think that Jesus was a capitalist? No. Judas was the capitalist! Christ was a revolutionary. He confronted the religous hierarchies. He confronted the economic power of the time. He preferred death in the defense of his humanistic ideals, who fostered change... our Jesus Christ.

[ComradeOm]

Capitalists as a class are not religious. On the contrary the bourgeoisie is significantly less religious than previous ruling classes. The secular societies/states of today are a direct product of bourgeois revolutions that destroyed the religiously charged ancien regimes with their emphasis on divine ordination of the monarch and religious obfuscation

So don't confuse one element of the bourgeoisie with the entire class


Personally I agree with that one. Most religions, but christianity in particular, are actually in favor of left-wing politicsWhich is why religions have been consistently used to buttress anti-socialist states and policies? Is burning witches or condemning homosexuality now conductive to "left-wing politics" :glare:

[red cat]

Capitalists will need god during the world revolution.

[NecroCommie]

Which is why religions have been consistently used to buttress anti-socialist states and policies? Is burning witches or condemning homosexuality now conductive to "left-wing politics" :glare:
That's like saying purges are central part of communist ideals. No where in the bible does it say... well damn it! It does say a thing or two, but the point is that modern religious institutions condemn such actions. American and Islamic fundies are batshit-crazy anomalies in the ocean of left-wing religious ideals.

Generally taken, horrible things are not the result of any specific dogma, but the belief in absolutes within ideas. All purges, mass murders and such, are born out of the belief that yours is the only possible absolute idea. People who are ready to even play with the idea of being wrong, seldomly succumb to such acts. It is true that religion very strongly promotes absolutes, yet it still is not the religious teachings themselves that kill, but the fanatic absolutism (or fundamentalism as we know it) with which you take those beliefs. This absolute mindset can take over just about any ideal that has any kind of theory, no matter how vague it may be.

But you are right in the since that none of the above make any religion at all more logical or credible.

On the topic I'd say that it's the other way around. Religious people are cappies. Religion by it's very definition sees belief without proof as a positive thing. This leads to a situation where that embracing of faith is extended to "earthly" topics such as politics, whether the dudes are aware of this or not. Thusly, religious folks are quite ready to believe any political "truth" they are given, since they have already learned to embrace the mindset of unquestionable belief. So it's not that cappies are religious, but that religious folks are cappies.

[MetJeBrood]

Religion is often used to oppressed the proletarian,
somethimes to make people scared,
otherthimes to keep and quiet..

It's also something that gives purpes to people there life's,
just work hard you're whole life for ( allmost ) nothing..
And if you pray and don't revolt there will be a paradise after this life of suffering..

[ComradeOm]

That's like saying purges are central part of communist idealsAnd if every major communist movement in the next several thousand years produces such bloody purges then I think it will be safe to conclude that they are indeed an integral part of communism. A rethink will therefore be in order

I am not talking about a single religious regime or a theocracy here but the broad and systematic role that religion has played throughout human history. From the God-Kings of Mesopotamia, the Imperial Cults of Rome and Egypt, Holy Roman Emperors, Mandate of Heaven, etc, etc, the purpose of religion has been to buttress and legitimise the ruling caste. This cannot be not simply written off as a misinterpretation of certain texts or the work of a few "fanatics"


On the topic I'd say that it's the other way around. Religious people are cappies. Religion by it's very definition sees belief without proof as a positive thing. This leads to a situation where that embracing of faith is extended to "earthly" topics such as politics, whether the dudes are aware of this or not. Thusly, religious folks are quite ready to believe any political "truth" they are given, since they have already learned to embrace the mindset of unquestionable belief. So it's not that cappies are religious, but that religious folks are cappies.An argument that makes no sense unless you can somehow link blind faith to capital accumulation. And explain away all those capitalists who are either atheists or profess no strong religious leanings

And, again, the stubborn reality is that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is incomparably less religious than preceding social modes. If your argument were true then surely the opposite would be the case?

[Mälli]

Christianity says that as a slave you have to obey your master like he is a god himself.

[NecroCommie]

And if every major communist movement in the next several thousand years produces such bloody purges then I think it will be safe to conclude that they are indeed an integral part of communism. A rethink will therefore be in order
Quantity does not make an argument. Religion and ideologies do not kill people. People do.

I am not talking about a single religious regime or a theocracy here but the broad and systematic role that religion has played throughout human history.
Once again, is that role religion's, or ideological absolutes?

From the God-Kings of Mesopotamia, the Imperial Cults of Rome and Egypt, Holy Roman Emperors, Mandate of Heaven, etc, etc, the purpose of religion has been to buttress and legitimise the ruling caste.
The fact that religion has been a primary tool of rulers, does not mean their very intention is to be used by rulers. And again, quantity does not make an argument. Religion-centered cultures can slaughter half the world, and still it would be the ideological lack of toleration that kills, not the idea itself.

This cannot be not simply written off as a misinterpretation of certain texts or the work of a few "fanatics"
Which is not what I claim. Ideological absolutism is not mere misinterpitation or cultural fringe movements. It is widespread idea within a culture that some idea or ideology is an absolute truth, and all else is heresy/false belief/revisionism/radicalism/terrorism etc...


An argument that makes no sense unless you can somehow link blind faith to capital accumulation.
What I meant, that the current mainstream claim is that capitalism is good, and that because religious people are by their very definition not prone to questioning, are they more inclined to believe whatever is the current trend.


And explain away all those capitalists who are either atheists or profess no strong religious leanings

Saying that most religious people are cappies =/= Saying all cappies are religious.


And, again, the stubborn reality is that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is incomparably less religious than preceding social modes. If your argument were true then surely the opposite would be the case?
This is because bourgeoisie dictatorship values status quo above all, and religious disagreements between populations can easily break that status quo. For earlier aeons religious disagreements did not play that vital role in dominating your own populace for most of the regions contained one religion only. Anomalies were handled throug sheer military intervention (such as the european controlled "holy land" during the crusades) Leaders could score easy points by being openly religious without causing too much dissent. Such is not the situation of modern multicultural empires.

[NecroCommie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)#As_a_state_.28truth.29
Here! What I call absolutism, wikipedia calls universalist philosophy. It is important to note how not all religious people are "universalists".

[ComradeOm]

Quantity does not make an argument. Religion and ideologies do not kill people. People doWhich is a profoundly stupid distinction. If you'll permit a foray into reductio ad Hitlerum, its akin to arguing that National Socialism is responsible for no deaths - that can be laid entirely at the feet of its adherents :rolleyes:

You are essentially arguing that an ideology that encourages narrow-mindedness, absolute truths, and brutality towards non-adherents is somehow not responsible for the violence unleashed by its believers. That's ridiculous and, I suspect, nothing but an attempt to disassociate religion (perhaps a specific one) from the countless deaths it has caused and from its historical role in buttressing the ruling class

And its the latter that we keep returning to because, regardless of your assertion to the contrary, the fact that religion has from its inception been, generally, a pliant tool of the ruling stratum of society is hugely relevant to this discussion. Put aside your meaningless abstract distinctions (oh, that's not religion's fault... just the Pope's :rolleyes:) and it becomes clear that since the beginning of history the role of the clergy has been in legitimising (as a primitive intellectual caste) the ruling class. In the grand social scheme of things this is their raison d'etre


Which is not what I claim. Ideological absolutism is not mere misinterpitation or cultural fringe movements. It is widespread idea within a culture that some idea or ideology is an absolute truth, and all else is heresy/false belief/revisionism/radicalism/terrorism etc... And it means absolutely nothing to you that religion, by its very nature, actively encourages such belief in absolute truths?


What I meant, that the current mainstream claim is that capitalism is good, and that because religious people are by their very definition not prone to questioning, are they more inclined to believe whatever is the current trend.Yes, they are more gullible. I'm still waiting however for you to demonstrate the connection between belief and the ownership of capital, that is membership of the capitalist class


This is because bourgeoisie dictatorship values status quo above allI suppose its not worth pointing out that this is a trait shared with almost every other ruling class in history? As a rule those who reach the top of society are pretty keen on maintaining the status quo. Which is where religion often comes in. So why single out capitalists, the ruling class that makes the least use of religion?


For earlier aeons religious disagreements did not play that vital role in dominating your own populaceYet we find that in these "earlier aeons" the connection between church and state was incomparably closer. You argue that religion was less useful in "dominating" the wider population yet these were the centuries in which the support of the Church was an essential component in securing the support (or at least placidly) of the masses to a degree unthinkable today. Which is exactly where the assertion that religion is more important to the capitalists today simply falls apart - it is possible to demonstrate (with even a cursory grasp of history) that this was simply not the case

Speaking of a cursory grasp of history, this is also a laughable suggestion when you consider the frankly frightening amount of bloodshed caused by inter-faith in European history alone. One of the big risks that came with being an "openly religious leader", as the Habsburgs found out, was that it automatically placed you on the frontlines when religious wars came round. Or would you consider the Thirty Years War (or various great schisms) to be another "anomaly"?

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...te_.28truth.29
Here! What I call absolutism, wikipedia calls universalist philosophy. It is important to note how not all religious people are "universalists". To be honest I have absolutely no interest in discussing your private definition of religion. What I'm discussing is the social role of real religious organisations throughout history

[the last donut of the night]

I'm an example of a religious communist. Sure, I'm hated by most of the users here. But it still goes to show that not all workers are atheist and not all capitalists are religious.
An example is Bill Maher, a condescending pig, who blasts religions (and individual religious people) and loves capitalism.

[NecroCommie]

Which is a profoundly stupid distinction. If you'll permit a foray into reductio ad Hitlerum, its akin to arguing that National Socialism is responsible for no deaths - that can be laid entirely at the feet of its adherents :rolleyes:
And yet wen we use your methods all schools of communism are directly to blaim for the purges in China, Cambodia and USSR.



You are essentially arguing that an ideology that encourages narrow-mindedness, absolute truths, and brutality towards non-adherents is somehow not responsible for the violence unleashed by its believers.

No, for my father used to say: "it is not the stupid on who sells, but who buys" Meaning that if religion supports something bad, there is more to blame on the stupidity of the people who actually believe that stuff and do that bad. Also, this means that fascism, whereas it might be wrong and illogical, is not bad in itself. Fascists are the ones to blame, and yes, we can fight them through fighting fascism.

Religion in itself does indeed support these things, but it supports so many other things, and it's different followers act on different "religious theories". If you deny the existence of huge masses of moral religious people, then I have to stop taking you seriously.


That's ridiculous and, I suspect, nothing but an attempt to disassociate religion (perhaps a specific one) from the countless deaths it has caused and from its historical role in buttressing the ruling class

Again, if it has had a role of supporting ruling class, by no means does it mean it can only do that. And if it has been a convenient excuse to carry out ancient purges, it is certainly not it's only function.


And its the latter that we keep returning to because, regardless of your assertion to the contrary, the fact that religion has from its inception been, generally, a pliant tool of the ruling stratum of society is hugely relevant to this discussion.
It is not, since the question is why are cappies religious (or are they), not how cappies are religious.

Put aside your meaningless abstract distinctions (oh, that's not religion's fault... just the Pope's :rolleyes:) and it becomes clear that since the beginning of history the role of the clergy has been in legitimising (as a primitive intellectual caste) the ruling class.
And regardless the relevance of my abstractness, you have the same old false assumption. Your logic as far as I understand goes: Religion has been used as a tool of a ruling class, therefore it can only be used as a tool for the ruling class.

In the grand social scheme of things this is their raison d'etre
This claim is insane! Religious people can be loonies, but to suggest a conspiracy of lunacy to enslave populace? Are you seriously claming that the original tribal religions were intented simply to control masses? Surely there can be no other reasons, such as... hmm... Ignorance of ancient peoples, and their will to replace that ignorance with belief? Surely not!

And it means absolutely nothing to you that religion, by its very nature, actively encourages such belief in absolute truths?
Ofcourse, but that is off-topic. As I said, no matter how weird and illogical, religion is simply opiate for the masses. It takes all kinds of manifestations, from wich hunts to poor-helping saints, but all that time it is just a silly superstition guilty at most of being a scapegoat for bad and good things.


Yes, they are more gullible. I'm still waiting however for you to demonstrate the connection between belief and the ownership of capital, that is membership of the capitalist class
Do you not claim that it is considered normal to be a capitalist in the modern western culture? Do you not claim that religious people support blind faith and are therefore prone to suggestion? If we agree on those, does it not follow that by average it is more likely for religious people to be capitalists, or at least not be very revolutionary?


Speaking of a cursory grasp of history, this is also a laughable suggestion when you consider the frankly frightening amount of bloodshed caused by inter-faith in European history alone. One of the big risks that came with being an "openly religious leader", as the Habsburgs found out, was that it automatically placed you on the frontlines when religious wars came round. Or would you consider the Thirty Years War (or various great schisms) to be another "anomaly"?
First of all, thirty years of war happened at the dawn of enlightment, and is therefore out of the time context I was talking about. Second of all, perhaps I phrased that one badly. It would have been better for me to say that in the past religion was usable as a scapegoat. You too know why modern times are less spiritual, it is useless to feign ignorance at the true reasons. Advancment of science and even earlier the victory of nobility over church are no doubt to blame. It has barely anything to do with perceived atheism or religiousness of the bourgeois.



To be honest I have absolutely no interest in discussing your private definition of religion. What I'm discussing is the social role of real religious organisations throughout history
Which has never been on topic in this thread. The definition of religion has everything to do with the question whether modern conservatives are religious or not, and if they are, how.

In general I'd say you over-estimate religion. It has never been anything else than an excuse for different horrible and silly acts. The fact that the members of some organisation believe in sky-daddy, does not make the idea of sky-daddy the driving political force. More often, the organzations have first decided their agenda, and if it so happens that their members are of the same religion, they add some religious dogma in their programme to score some extra points in that region. Religion's only historical purpose has been to function as an argument for people without arguments. These "arguments" have been both in good and bad.

[Hit The North]

Chavez says he was a revolutionary;

Yes, but Chavez is a politician so we're not supposed to take what he says seriously.

Moreover, capitalism, as opposed to capitalists, undermines religion. Marx points this out in the Communist Manifesto. Individual capitalists will support religion if it's profitable. If it's unprofitable they'll ditch it as soon as they can. Because religion tends to be rooted in tradition, and capitalist accumulation depends upon innovation, religion is usually a barrier to profit.

This is why being anti-religion is not enough to call yourself a revolutionary. You have to be a communist as well.

[Dimentio]

Early capitalism was quite anti-christian. I remember that liberals (who were the political wing of the capitalists in 19th century Europe) fought to separate the church and the state and roll back church privilegies. In the USA, the situation has been different due to the lack of a state church. Hence, there was no need to formulate political ideas in opposition to a christian establishment.

[Hit The North]

Early capitalism was quite anti-christian.

It's extreme left-wing in the 18th Century was. But early capitalists (16th and 17th Century) could not afford to be anti-religious. Hence they migrated into Protestantism.

However, I think you're correct in identifying the absence of a religiously-sanctioned ruling elite in the United States as something which separates the ascension of capitalism in North America with its ascension in Europe (where the feudal order was sanctioned by Rome). Perhaps this goes some way to explaining the relative backwardness of the United States in terms of its secularisation: its leading intellectual class didn't get the chance, because it didn't have the need, to sharpen its anti-theistic critique.

It is interesting that even though the US Constitution enshrines the separation of Church and State, religious belief plays a more decisive role in US politics, and is culturally more pervasive, than in the major European nations.

[Dimentio]

I agree that early capitalists were most often associated with calvinism, which suited capitalistic behaviour of accumulation in the 16th and 17th centuries. One of the reason why the USA, despite separation between church and state always has had a strong fundamentalistic streak is that religious bigotry and ideas of separation of church and state did not necessarily conflict in the 18th century. There are several thousand different kinds of christian churches, and those supported by establishments usually repressed other christian churches worse than they repressed members of other religions. Hence, it was rational for small protestant churches to support religious pluralism (in Sweden, there was for a time an unlikely alliance between social democrats and pentecostalists in the late 19th century in a fight against a repressive and reactionary Lutheran state church).

[Hit The North]

True. In fact the first waves of European immigration into North America were the result of people escaping religious persecution in their home countries.

[revolt4thewin]

Capitalists are not religious except for the love and worship of money while satisfying their limitless greed.

[Dimentio]

Capitalists are often adhering to the cultural context in which they live. For example in Sweden, most capitalists are "secular humanists" (atheists), while in America, most of them are protestants who go to church every sunday. In China, most of them are high-ranking members of the Chinese Communist Party and read Marx on their spare-time (or claim to do so).

[cyu]

Capitalists often use religion as a tool to keep the proletariat content with simply living through their troubles. It is rare that they actually follow the principles of the religions they claim to advocate.

Right. It is important to divide the "religious capitalist" into two groups:

1. A true capitalist (someone who makes a living off the backs of his employees) who pretends to be religious or uses religious arguments to defend his oppression of the rest of society.

2. A religious person who is not a capitalist himself, but supports capitalism because he has been duped by those in category 1, since capitalists control all the mass media, can make huge donations to churches, can fund their own religious think tanks, can decide which books with which interpretations of religions get published and put in bookstores.

It really isn't specific to religion itself. Throught history, the wealthy have co-opted just about every ideal that others support, from concepts like "freedom" to "democracy" to "libertarian" to "patriotism" to labor unions to "social democracy" and other "socialist" political parties.