Christianity and Capitalism...are they linked/tied?

[Hexen]

I've now recently heard someone say that Capitalism comes from Christianity because they tried to 'out-religious' each other hence the competition and such which kinda makes sense really.

So basically does Christianity serves as the actual root of Capitalism? If so in order to combat capitalism, we also need to combat the actual root which is Christianity as well.

Thoughts on this?

[DDR]

I've now recently heard someone say that Capitalism comes from Christianity because they tried to 'out-religious' each other hence the competition and such which kinda makes sense really.

So basically does Christianity serves as the actual root of Capitalism? If so in order to combat capitalism, we also need to combat the actual root which is Christianity as well.

Thoughts on this?

I don't thinks so, not christianity as a whole is linked to capitalism, but I think it has to do with the Protestant view of Christianity. While Protestantism (Calvinism and Luteranism) were more progresive in its time it holds a more individualist POV, the Catholic Church, as reactonary as it always have been, is more communal. As you can see capitalism was developed in Protestant countries, and their early thinkers came from a Protestant background.

[Hexen]

However though if you read the Apostles Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) they're still basically the same thing though hence Christianity still serves as the main root though.

[Comrade Dracula]

I am rather uncertain how ideology can be the "actual root" of anything, really - after all, ideologies (or the sociopolitical superstructure of a society in general, for that matter) are in the last instance derived from the particular economical realities of an era - but I don't understand what you intend to say in this part:


I've now recently heard someone say that Capitalism comes from Christianity because they tried to 'out-religious' each other hence the competition and such which kinda makes sense really.

Until you clarify that, I am afraid that I most likely shan't be of all that much use to you.

However, in an attempt to be more constructive to the discussion, I'll speculate. Sorry, but I've no choice.

After some brainstorming, I suppose that you were trying to say the following: the person in question proposed that capitalism became what it is because in the days before the bourgeois revolutions, the bourgeoisie attempted to create a counter-hegemony (of the ideological sort) to the currently ruling feudal ideas (rather, to what became of them in their final days). In doing so, they had to be equal in the intensity to which one of the main pillars (if not the main pillar) of the feudal ideology espoused its ideas (namely, the Church) - so figuratively speaking they attempted to "out-religious" each other. Through this competition, then, they discovered and embedded the aforementioned way of strife into their very being (or somesuch, it's midnight, don't expect my own wording to make much sense).

If that is the theory your acquaintance put forward (or, let's be realistic, anything resembling such), I must wholeheartedly reject it.

To begin with, in France (for in the case of Britain I am quite ignorant, to my discredit) the ideas of the Enlightenment philosophers were not all that relevant until the Revolution - or at least the mass hunger that took place before it. The segments in which they were popular were likely the burghers, the protobourgeoise. Once the Revolution came (and here I mean in earnest, rather than its initial phases), the struggle against Church did intensify as the fledgling bourgeois republic fought to assert its hegemony. This did lead to "out-religiousness" contest of sorts with the so-called Cult of Reason (the Jacobins brought this about, if I am not mistaken), but later the Church was successfully reintegrated into the new state of affairs.

However, did this "competition" between two ideologies (for, let's make no mistakes, the Catholic Church was the symbolic incarnation of Feudal Ideology in general, prior to its reintegration) somehow embed itself into the psyche of the capitalists, or the functioning of the system in general?

No, of course not!

If we were to adopt such a theory, we'd succumb to idealism. Ideologies do not create economic systems, it is the other way around. A clever reader here could say: Then what of the real, material struggle of the bourgeoisie against the feudal classes? Could this have been the causation?
This is admittedly an interesting inversion, however it is merely more the profound of the two version (i.e. equally false).

Markets, to my knowledge, started to form in mid-to-late feudalism, with the emergence of a stable urban communities and the various iterations of the burgher class (culminating in the post-industrial revolution one). With them developed markets, something outside of the classical serf-feudal lord relationship. With markets, came competition - because, at end of the day, if you want to return a profit, you may just happen to have to screw the other fella over.
Under capitalism, this competitive market merely developed further, with the change in relations of production (brought about in large part by the industrial revolution, though one could see it as the harbinger of the necessity for a change in relations of production), and brought itself to its apex.

So to summarize more generally: The roots of capitalism lie in the struggle between the bourgeois economic interests and the feudal system (in which I include the feudal state as well). More specifically, the class of citizenry - the burghers - emerged economically thanks to the industrial revolution. They achieved partial economic dominance, but in order to fulfill it fully, they had to do away with the baggage of the feudal social relations as well as achieve political dominance. In doing so, they ushered in capitalism, as its economic dominance perfected. This complete dominance, however, did not come out of the void, but was the evolution of that which once was, and as such inherited and further developed the characteristics of its ancestor.

Did Christianity influence various capitalist ideologies and ideologues? Certainly, significantly more so after its reintegration with the capitalist state of affairs. Even further, as DDR stated, some of the earliest bourgeois ideologues and thinkers were influenced by Christianity (after all, how couldn't they be, living surrounded by Christian ideology?) However, we must remember: Economic interests and dynamics came before their accompanying ideologies.

Again, sorry for speculation, but I wanted this post to be more than mere request for clarification. I hope you found it of some use.

Edit: Also, as I've mentioned, it's midnight where I am, so I'm probably not making much sense. Take what I said with a grain of salt. Or, better yet, a salt mine.

[Zealot]

No but according to Max Weber the "protestant work ethic" produced a lot of wealth which was hoarded and reinvested because indulging in luxuries is sinful. Thus, capitalism. There was no "out-religiousing" taking place except to the extent that working hard for work's sake was supposedly a protestant ethic, not catholic. It's a bad argument anyway and once you get deeper it becomes pretty clear that this was written during the colonial period.

[RedMaterialist]

I've now recently heard someone say that Capitalism comes from Christianity because they tried to 'out-religious' each other hence the competition and such which kinda makes sense really.

So basically does Christianity serves as the actual root of Capitalism? If so in order to combat capitalism, we also need to combat the actual root which is Christianity as well.

Thoughts on this?

One of the most fundamental discoveries of Marx was that religion, philosophy, politics, art, etc. are (generally) derived from the way in which humans produce their daily lives. It is the material existence of men and women which produces their religions and ideologies, hence, the name materialism, (no, not the Madonna kind.)

Thus, it is capitalist production which produces Protestant Christianity.

The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour – for such a society, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion.

Capital, Chapter One, Section Four, The Fetishism of Commodities.

There is a well known work by Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, which said that Protestants, and specifically not Jews or Catholics, created capitalism. If you don't believe me you can check it out from the library (meaning, the book is still under copyright); it's in first chapter or so.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

One of the most fundamental discoveries of Marx was that religion, philosophy, politics, art, etc. are (generally) derived from the way in which humans produce their daily lives. It is the material existence of men and women which produces their religions and ideologies, hence, the name materialism, (no, not the Madonna kind.)


That wasn't a "discovery" of Marx, it was a philosophical position he held and he happened to have good arguments for it.

The stuff about the Protestant work ethic is more or less accurate though - it was associated with the early 16th century bourgeoisie developing in Germany, Holland and Britain.

[cyu]

From http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=4794

Capitalism is compatible with anarchism only as much as capitalism is compatible with democracy or Christianity - in other words, it's not compatible at all.

However, many people do believe compatibility exists. This belief exists because capitalists have a lot of money. They are able to throw that money at "think tanks" to develop ideas to basically fool the noobs into believing all sorts of nonesense that will keep the wealthy in power.

This type of behavior has been going on ever since great disparities in wealth existed, and ever since the wealthy felt the need to justify their power, lest the masses knock them down from their perch.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

In 1984, a rift developed between Ratzinger and some of the bishops, with Ratzinger issuing official condemnations of certain elements of liberation theology.

Ratzinger continued to condemn elements in liberation theology, and prohibited dissident priests from teaching such doctrines in the Church's name. Leonardo Boff was suspended and others were censured. Tissa Balasuriya was excommunicated. Sebastian Kappen was also censured for his book Jesus and Freedom. Under Ratzinger's influence, theological formation schools were forbidden from using the Catholic Church's organization and grounds to teach liberation theology.

[Remus Bleys]

Although, now the Vatican is saying that Liberation Theology is a legitimate theology. Thats something.