Look at everyone caught in the dialectic of Marxism vs Capitalism while the elites across the world are laughing to the bank with no end in sight.

File5 said:

---

Positive rights are something I struggle with consistently having grown up an American. Much more used to rights free FROM things rather than rights TO things. I have not heard that Fulton Sheen quote but I disagree with it and the Catechism as well.

IMO Capitalism has been so successful with Christianity because it allows us to express our Christian charity of our own free will as opposed to it being forced, as other posters have said.

Just spitballing but in this case I would be more in line with the Catechism if it said what you're doing yourself: that you should provide those in your employ with just wages, which is fundamentally different than them having a right to them. The genesis for a just wage is you acting as a just Christian employer, not them for working. It's the same issue I have with the right to healthcare. How can you have a right to other people's care and goods? Instead, others should freely give to those who need. Which comes back to the beauty of capitalism and why it works so well with Christianity. Implementing laws to force these "rights" is at odds with giving of our free will.

---

Capitalism is only beautiful insomuch as it recognizes individuals as "people" and not merely "inputs" or "markets". You are correct that the onus is on capital to ensure that they treat their employees justly, but that is only so because the employee has that very right to a just wage; inherent in the relationship between capital and labor. If you are going to labor, full-time for someone, that person needs to ensure that your basic human needs are met through that labor.

Now what someone's needs are vary; and the Church does distinguish between jobs "cashier at McDonald's" and professions "manager of a McDonald's"

Zobel said:

---

nobody has a right to a just wage.

---

My buddy has a theory that anytime you put an adjective in front of the word justice the conversation ceases to be about any actual justice.

Social Justice
Citational Justice
Wage Justice

I assume your interpretation here is that rights are exclusively negative. To have a positive right to a wage would be an untenable social indebtedness to another person. There is risk in business, you can't have a 100% adherence to a wage because you can't ensure a business will 100% have profits to pay out a wage. To obligate something as a natural right is to draw a line back how God ordered man and society. Which wage justice is not a thing in that context.

Exactly.

Further, forget just… no one has a right to a wage, period. That means by necessity a right to a job. Where does that right come from? Who is obligated to provide a job, and a wage with it?

Ok - I disagree with the catechism, then. You may have a social and moral obligation to do what is right for your employees. This is part of justice, which is fundamentally about relationships. That does not give them the right to a just wage at your expense in any kind of general sense. You are free to not maintain the employer-employee relationship with them, and they are free to do the same. A right to a wage is a kind of bizarre inverted slavery.

Zobel said:

---

Ok - I disagree with the catechism, then. You may have a social and moral obligation to do what is right for your employees. This is part of justice, which is fundamentally about relationships. That does not give them the right to a just wage at your expense in any kind of general sense. You are free to not maintain the employer-employee relationship with them, and they are free to do the same. A right to a wage is a kind of bizarre inverted slavery.

---

What does Justice mean outside of any idea of rights? I don't understand how you can say you have an obligation to do something that someone doesn't have any right to. If they don't have any right to it; why are you obliged?

Justice means in proper order - we retain this sense when we use it to "justify" in a word processor. Everything aligned, properly.

You are obliged by faithfulness to God to do what is right. That absolutely includes treating your workers a certain way, as much as it includes your dealing with anyone. Your obligation is to God, not to them. Likewise, their obligation is to God, not to you. That's how St Paul formulates it - "for it is the Lord you serve." The reason we owe justice to each other is because we are image bearers of God, and what we do to each other we do to Him.

That does not create a claim the other way around. No person can come up to you and lay claim to a job from you, much less the wage that comes with it.

I mean, let's just stop and image how this might work. Steve Smith doesn't have a job, but allegedly he has a right to a just wage and the job that comes with it. Who has to give Steve a job? You? Me?

Zobel said:

---

Justice means in proper order - we retain this sense when we use it to "justify" in a word processor. Everything aligned, properly.

You are obliged by faithfulness to God to do what is right. That absolutely includes treating your workers a certain way, as much as it includes your dealing with anyone. Your obligation is to God, not to them. Likewise, their obligation is to God, not to you. That's how St Paul formulates it - "for it is the Lord you serve." The reason we owe justice to each other is because we are image bearers of God, and what we do to each other we do to Him.

That does not create a claim the other way around. No person can come up to you and lay claim to a job from you, much less the wage that comes with it.

I mean, let's just stop and image how this might work. Steve Smith doesn't have a job, but allegedly he has a right to a just wage and the job that comes with it. Who has to give Steve a job? You? Me?

---

We're not talking about laying a claim to a job, we are talking about proper recompense for a person who is doing a job for you. Take this to an absolute extreme, does a person have a right to any pay from you, if they are working for you?

How can a person have a right to a wage without first having a right to a job? Isn't a job a prerequisite?

But even so, take the job for granted. Let's imagine a person is only capable of doing work that you as a business owner can sell for $1 an hour - at cost. You pay him that, breaking even, no profit for yourself at all. Is that just?

I imagine all the people who talk about these things wouldn't say it was. So are you obliged to pay him more? How much more? $10? $100 per hour? How much justice does he have you on the hook for? It's his right, you say.

Can you choose to not do that line of business any more? Or does he now have a right to what can only be identified as charity from you indefinitely?

Zobel said:

---

How can a person have a right to a wage without first having a right to a job? Isn't a job a prerequisite?

But even so, take the job for granted. Let's imagine a person is only capable of doing work that you as a business owner can sell for $1 an hour - at cost. You pay him that, breaking even, no profit for yourself at all. Is that just?

I imagine all the people who talk about these things wouldn't say it was. So are you obliged to pay him more? How much more? $10? $100 per hour? How much justice does he have you on the hook for? It's his right, you say.

Can you choose to not do that line of business any more? Or does he now have a right to what can only be identified as charity from you indefinitely?

---

You do not have an obligation to ensure that any random person is employed nor do you have an obligation to keep someone employer, your obligation, based on the rights of the worker is that if they are working for you, full-time, and you can afford to do so, that you recompense them in a way that covers their basic living necessities.

As for "how much Justice does he have you on the hook for" it varies by person. A man with a family would have you on the hook for much more than an 18 year old.

Put this in a real world example, my employees who have worked dutifully for me for years, and who are still productive yet not as productive as they have been have no right to the wage they've been paid by me for years, and I have every right to cut their wage; no even though I can easily afford it.

and if you can't afford to do so, what then?

why should an 18 year old get paid less than the 40 year old with six kids for the same work? this is justice?

Zobel said:

---

and if you can't afford to do so, what then?

why should an 18 year old get paid less than the 40 year old with six kids for the same work? this is justice?

---

No that's not an injustice, it's because the 18 year old can take care of his necessities with less than the 40 year old can.

Does an employee have a right to ANY sort of wage whatsoever. A person comes to me and asks for a job, I agree; we don't discuss payment; he works for two weeks, does he have the right to expect anything from me, or no?

"If you can't afford to do so then what" we have an app for that

Marxism isn't free from covetousness. In fact, I'd argue that it drives it.

The employer's "moderate recompense to cover his needs" outweighs the right of the employee to a living wage? In other words, your right to your wage comes before theirs. This is becoming so conditional I don't really see the value.

Quote:

---

No that's not an injustice, it's because the 18 year old can take care of his necessities with less than the 40 year old can.

---

That is a picture of injustice. Kids have a very inherent sense of fairness - I assume you have kids. Try that with them some time. The Lord strains our idea of justice when He rewards the later workers the same as the earlier, but He correctly identifies it as His prerogative and an act of generosity and choice. Not obligation.

You may choose to pay the 40 year old more, out of the profit that would otherwise go to your "moderate recompense" but this is not his right to claim. It is not owed by you to him any more than any charity is owed by your to anyone. If you choose to be generous, that is good and to your credit. But he has no right to additional pay on you because his expenses are more than the next man's.

Quote:

---

Does an employee have a right to ANY sort of wage whatsoever. A person comes to me and asks for a job, I agree; we don't discuss payment; he works for two weeks, does he have the right to expect anything from me, or no?

---

An employee has the right to what he agreed to work for. If a person works for you and you don't pay them, you've stolen from them. The amount doesn't change it. The expectation in your scenario is that he should be paid a fair value for the work he performed. But that value is based on the value of the work, not the work plus some other opaque calculation of justice and living expenses. If a person does $1 of work for you, they have no right to $100 regardless of how their personal circumstances impinge on their finances.


Things have value. Paying more than value is charity. Paying less is theft. People have no right to demand charity; you are obliged as a Christian to be charitable.

We have the freedom to choose - to work, or not. To employ, or not. This is capitalism in a nutshell. It is just a fancy word for freedom.

Zobel said:

---

The employer's "moderate recompense to cover his needs" outweighs the right of the employee to a living wage? In other words, your right to your wage comes before theirs. This is becoming so conditional I don't really see the value.

Quote:

---

No that's not an injustice, it's because the 18 year old can take care of his necessities with less than the 40 year old can.

---

That is a picture of injustice. Kids have a very inherent sense of fairness - I assume you have kids. Try that with them some time. The Lord strains our idea of justice when He rewards the later workers the same as the earlier, but He correctly identifies it as His prerogative and an act of generosity and choice. Not obligation.

You may choose to pay the 40 year old more, out of the profit that would otherwise go to your "moderate recompense" but this is not his right to claim. It is not owed by you to him any more than any charity is owed by your to anyone. If you choose to be generous, that is good and to your credit. But he has no right to additional pay on you because his expenses are more than the next man's.

Quote:

---

Does an employee have a right to ANY sort of wage whatsoever. A person comes to me and asks for a job, I agree; we don't discuss payment; he works for two weeks, does he have the right to expect anything from me, or no?

---

An employee has the right to what he agreed to work for. If a person works for you and you don't pay them, you've stolen from them. The amount doesn't change it. The expectation in your scenario is that he should be paid a fair value for the work he performed. But that value is based on the value of the work, not the work plus some other opaque calculation of justice and living expenses. If a person does $1 of work for you, they have no right to $100 regardless of how their personal circumstances impinge on their finances.


Things have value. Paying more than value is charity. Paying less is theft. People have no right to demand charity; you are obliged as a Christian to be charitable.

We have the freedom to choose - to work, or not. To employ, or not. This is capitalism in a nutshell. It is just a fancy word for freedom.

---

You didn't answer my question, if a person shows up and works at my facility and we haven't discussed pay, does he have the ability to make a moral claim on me that he is owed something, regardless of the amount? Why or why not?

Things have value but people are not things, this is the ugly side of capitalism that the Church is pointing at. Capitalism values people only so far as they are productive, when they are no longer productive their value drops to zero. This is fine with a widget and not fine when it comes to a person. In your world a person who works but does not generate enough value to cover their needs has no right to expect their needs to be met; regardless of the hours worked.

In short; if a hungry man comes and works my farm all day, he has no right to a meal if I do not adjudge his production at greater than the meal's worth?

If a hungry man comes to you in any capacity (much less work your farm) you are obliged to feed him as a Christian gesture - he doesn't have a right to your food. To me the Church is saying that the *ugly side of Capitalism is that it in fact allows us to be Christian towards others - or not. That's the whole point though!

Quote:

---

You didn't answer my question, if a person shows up and works at my facility and we haven't discussed pay, does he have the ability to make a moral claim on me that he is owed something, regardless of the amount? Why or why not?

---

Yes, I did. He should be paid a fair value for the work he performed. The value is derived from the value of the work, not his personal circumstances.

"Labor" is not a special product. It is exactly the same as any other. If you flip it around to another exchange it becomes as clear.

If you own a grocery store, and a person comes and eats an item from your store before asking what the price is, how much does he owe you? The only answer is - the expected sales price of the item. It has nothing to do with the person who came in, their personal financial circumstances, or anything else. The value is set, and they owe you that value.

You asked "why" and the answer is clear here. Because that item has a value - set by the market - and a cost -opportunity and production cost already borne by you the seller.

Going back to your case, the worker is the store owner, they are the seller, and the product is the work. That work has a value - set by the market - and a cost - opportunity and production cost borne by the seller, in this case, the worker.

The person who ate the item has no right to a discount based on their personal circumstances. The store owner has no right to charge the person who ate more than the expected sales price merely because the eater can afford it. The employer has no right to pay the worker less than the value of their work. The worker has no right to charge the employer more because they can afford it or because they "need the money". It is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the terms of the sale or the value of the product.

Quote:

---

Things have value but people are not things, this is the ugly side of capitalism that the Church is pointing at. Capitalism values people only so far as they are productive, when they are no longer productive their value drops to zero. This is fine with a widget and not fine when it comes to a person.

---

This is not relevant to the matter at hand. A worker is selling their labor, an employer is buying it. The value in question is the product, not the person. It is not ugly or not ugly, it simply is. The worker is free to sell their labor for whatever price they can get for it. They are not free to force someone to pay any particular thing - this is what a right entails. The employer is free to purchase labor for whatever price they can find. They are not free to force someone to work for less.

Quote:

---

In your world a person who works but does not generate enough value to cover their needs has no right to expect their needs to be met; regardless of the hours worked.

---

Completely true.

Hiring someone doesn't magically force you to be responsible for that person. A person agreeing to sell you their labor does not mandate a reciprocal additional burden of your responsibility to pay for their expenses beyond the product they are selling you.

Buying food from a grocery store does not make you obligated to keep that store in the black! You are only responsible for the value of your transaction. Employees are not family. They are vendors.

Ironically, I would absolutely agree with you that a slave master has an entirely different set of obligations to their slaves, which absolutely is not based whatever on the productive value of the work. However, an employer is not a slave master. And the reason is precisely found in the freedom of exchange.

Quote:

---

In short; if a hungry man comes and works my farm all day, he has no right to a meal if I do not adjudge his production at greater than the meal's worth?

---

If all he does is ruin plants and dig pointless holes in the ground, and produces nothing, he has sold you a worthless product that has no value. You owe him nothing. He has no right to anything.

However, as a Christian you should feed him - just as a Christian you should feed anyone. Expecting him to work for his meal is a bizarre kind of subsidized charity. Charity is charity. You should do charity. You are not more obligated to be charitable to your employees than any other person in the world. You just have a greater opportunity because of your proximity.

File5 said:

---

If a hungry man comes to you in any capacity (much less work your farm) you are obliged to feed him as a Christian gesture - he doesn't have a right to your food. To me the Church is saying that the *ugly side of Capitalism is that it in fact allows us to be Christian towards others - or not. That's the whole point though!

---

I believe the church is saying that the ugly side of capitalism is when we value labor only as far as their productivity, and not as humans.

I would argue if a person comes to work at your farm all day and you don't feed him or give him in the equivalent in some form you have wronged him, regardless of the value he has given provided he was working honestly; so far as you can afford to pay him.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a person who worked on a farm all day would be in the wrong for demanding a meal if the farmer didn't think he had been that productive. Does the laborer have a right to the meal or no? Does it matter if it had been discussed beforehand?

If you go to a restaurant and order a steak and they serve you a pile of sawdust, do you owe them anything, regardless of whether there is a price on the menu? And I mean an honest pile of sawdust. Chef is doing his best.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't answer my question, if a person shows up and works at my facility and we haven't discussed pay, does he have the ability to make a moral claim on me that he is owed something, regardless of the amount? Why or why not?

---

Yes, I did. He should be paid a fair value for the work he performed. The value is derived from the value of the work, not his personal circumstances.

"Labor" is not a special product. It is exactly the same as any other. If you flip it around to another exchange it becomes as clear.

If you own a grocery store, and a person comes and eats an item from your store before asking what the price is, how much does he owe you? The only answer is - the expected sales price of the item. It has nothing to do with the person who came in, their personal financial circumstances, or anything else. The value is set, and they owe you that value.

You asked "why" and the answer is clear here. Because that item has a value - set by the market - and a cost -opportunity and production cost already borne by you the seller.

Going back to your case, the worker is the store owner, they are the seller, and the product is the work. That work has a value - set by the market - and a cost - opportunity and production cost borne by the seller, in this case, the worker.

The person who ate the item has no right to a discount based on their personal circumstances. The store owner has no right to charge the person who ate more than the expected sales price merely because the eater can afford it. The employer has no right to pay the worker less than the value of their work. The worker has no right to charge the employer more because they can afford it or because they "need the money". It is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the terms of the sale or the value of the product.

Quote:

---

Things have value but people are not things, this is the ugly side of capitalism that the Church is pointing at. Capitalism values people only so far as they are productive, when they are no longer productive their value drops to zero. This is fine with a widget and not fine when it comes to a person.

---

This is not relevant to the matter at hand. A worker is selling their labor, an employer is buying it. The value in question is the product, not the person. It is not ugly or not ugly, it simply is. The worker is free to sell their labor for whatever price they can get for it. They are not free to force someone to pay any particular thing - this is what a right entails. The employer is free to purchase labor for whatever price they can find. They are not free to force someone to work for less.

Quote:

---

In your world a person who works but does not generate enough value to cover their needs has no right to expect their needs to be met; regardless of the hours worked.

---

Completely true.

Hiring someone doesn't magically force you to be responsible for that person. A person agreeing to sell you their labor does not mandate a reciprocal additional burden of your responsibility to pay for their expenses beyond the product they are selling you.

Buying food from a grocery store does not make you obligated to keep that store in the black! You are only responsible for the value of your transaction. Employees are not family. They are vendors.

Ironically, I would absolutely agree with you that a slave master has an entirely different set of obligations to their slaves, which absolutely is not based whatever on the productive value of the work. However, an employer is not a slave master. And the reason is precisely found in the freedom of exchange.

Quote:

---

In short; if a hungry man comes and works my farm all day, he has no right to a meal if I do not adjudge his production at greater than the meal's worth?

---

If all he does is ruin plants and dig pointless holes in the ground, and produces nothing, he has sold you a worthless product that has no value. You owe him nothing. He has no right to anything.

However, as a Christian you should feed him - just as a Christian you should feed anyone. Expecting him to work for his meal is a bizarre kind of subsidized charity. Charity is charity. You should do charity. You are not more obligated to be charitable to your employees than any other person in the world. You just have a greater opportunity because of your proximity.

---

This is like speaking about metaphysics to an atheist, you have created a world for yourself that is gnostic; you have a laborer who is merely flesh and blood and you have a human who has a soul; but the two do not overlap. A human's labor is not a product, it's his sole avenue for providing himself and his family with necessities that are vital for both spiritual and physical harmony. This just seems like Gordon Gekko-esque boasting.

Where do the employees lack of rights end with regards to their labor? Do they have the right to be safe at work? Or do I have the moral obligation to keep them safe but they have no right to demand safe working conditions? Do they have the right to demand time off for prayer or church attendance? Or is that another moral obligation that is merely on me?

I'm not trying to crawfish here im just trying to establish where lines are drawn regarding employee rights or if they even exist

A right that places an obligation on someone else is no right at all.

You don't own me, and have no right to me, or my time, or my money. I don't own you, and have no right to you, your time, or your money.

Whatever we choose to do is another matter. Your employees aren't your children, or your slaves. They're free men and women, who have the benefits and responsibilities of that freedom.

Exchange is exchange, charity is charity. You're muddling them up to where you can't even tell the difference.

Zobel said:

---

If you go to a restaurant and order a steak and they serve you a pile of sawdust, do you owe them anything, regardless of whether there is a price on the menu? And I mean an honest pile of sawdust. Chef is doing his best.

---

No, but that's not the issue at hand here. No one is saying you have to pay employees a living wage if they're not actually laboring productively. If there's no price on the menu, and a beautiful steak comes out; does the restaurant have a right to expect payment? Does the price change whether it was cooked by a Michelin star chef or by a bored cigarette smoking 18 year old provided they're the same quality?

I also note that you have accepted the marxists premise that the value placed on a man's labor is a de facto valuation of the person. You say the capitalist is tempted to value it too low by basing it on the productive value of the labor, and your answer is to gross up the value based on "justice".

I reject that premise entirely. A man's worth has nothing to do whatever with the value of their labor. Their labor is what is being valued, not their person.

The value is what is, it doesn't matter who is making it or buying it. That's the point. The difference in value is the product - steak or sawdust - not the person making it, or the person buying it.

I feel like you've completely flipped sides here. No, the restaurant shouldn't charge you more if the chef is 40 and has a family vs an 18 year old, because the value is the product. Just like you shouldn't be charged more for the same labor from an 18 year old or a 40 year old because cost of living.

Zobel said:

---

A right that places an obligation on someone else is no right at all.

You don't own me, and have no right to me, or my time, or my money. I don't own you, and have no right to you, your time, or your money.

Whatever we choose to do is another matter. Your employees aren't your children, or your slaves. They're free men and women, who have the benefits and responsibilities of that freedom.

Exchange is exchange, charity is charity. You're muddling them up to where you can't even tell the difference.

---

That is a very anti-Gospel way of thinking and extremely atomized. Do you think people have a right to kill themselves? Maim themselves? What gives us the right to tell them they don't? You have somehow meshed the idea of the Protestant work ethic into your religious views. I have a massive obligation to my employees and they have a massive obligation to me. I have a right to expect their honest labor, and they have the right to insist I take care of their needs provided they give their honest labor. What you are saying is that I have no right to their honest labor just because I'm paying them, and they have no right to honest pay just because they're working. It sounds like nonsense to me.

What you're saying sounds straight out of Adam Smith, show me something from your church. There has to be some sort of eastern teaching on social Justice; and I refuse to believe it sounds like it comes out of Wealth of Nations; I have too much respect for orthodoxy to believe that.

Zobel said:

---

I also note that you have accepted the marxists premise that the value placed on a man's labor is a de facto valuation of the person. You say the capitalist is tempted to value it too low by basing it on the productive value of the labor, and your answer is to gross up the value based on "justice".

I reject that premise entirely. A man's worth has nothing to do whatever with the value of their labor. Their labor is what is being valued, not their person.

---

Yes, you'll note in the quote I posted it said "against marxism when marxism would destroy property and against capital when it would promote profit over just wages". This is the third position that is neither, it rejects each side because its telos is completely out of focus. Capitalism says the end goal of labor is market efficiency, Marxism says the end goal of labor is complete societal equity; the Church says the end goal of labor is to create and maintain the environment suitable for man to achieve heaven.

Capitalism approves of slavery provided the person working's boss values their labor at nothing. Or so it seems

Zobel said:

---

If you go to a restaurant and order a steak and they serve you a pile of sawdust, do you owe them anything, regardless of whether there is a price on the menu? And I mean an honest pile of sawdust. Chef is doing his best.

---

"Sir this was an honest mistake, I completely misunderstood when you said you were pining for a walnut and a cherry."

Also, a dishonest pile of sawdust comes from MDF.

Okay just pulled this from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, endorsed by Patriarch Bartholomew, it sounds very similar to what I've said, and directly attacks what you've said regarding labor being a commodity.




https://www.goarch.org/social-ethos

What I haven't seen on this thread is any mention of the church ordaining a transvestite and how that transvestite is openly encouraging and promoting that lifestyle in the church!

sodycracker said:

---

What I haven't seen on this thread is any mention of the church ordaining a transvestite and how that transvestite is openly encouraging and promoting that lifestyle in the church!

---

Yup. The capitalism thing is just liberal speak for neo-Marxism. The transgender and gay sex agenda is really just their tool to achieve total control though Marxism. I cry for my old church knowing that the devil as infiltrated and taken control of them. God is indeed watching.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

I don't think that terms like capitalism and Marxism are very useful terms to apply to the historical Jesus or the early church. I think they describe issues and circumstances in a modern economy that aren't applicable to the late second temple period. When we do so we end up stretching the meaning of the language and cherry picking which parts of their political and economic beliefs to promote.

The Romans were certainly intent on the owner of property being able to use and abuse property however they so chose, but that included people and slaves and it only applies to a certain class of owners. The Greek Platonic ideal was wildly authoritarian and collectivist but it never actually worked. And the biblical vision is simultaneously anti-empire yet shares common property and obligations at a local level mixed in with a good amount of royal monarchy just to make it confusing.

I don't think these fit very well in a modern economy or political context.

---

I agree with the statement 100%. It's a little bit of a paradox of terminologies I was having with myself about my own comments.

The Romans and the ancient world at the time believe there was a finite amount of money. Which means that if you took money from the poor, then that was just money gone, and the accumulation of riches by one man was immoral when others were starving.

I think there's a good argument that capitalism is an obvious tool given to us by the intellect God bestowed upon us that can be used well, or can be used for evil.

It still has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

---

Then you've created your own inconsistency here. If Christianity has nothing to do with capitalism, then leave capitalism alone and there is no moral argument that you can make for or against an economic system formed from the top down in the name in Christianity.

But here's the thing. There absolutely is Christian grounds for having a capitalistic structure and Christian grounds for rejecting marxism.

God absolutely wanted the following things ordered that sound a lot like 'in defense of capitalism'
-Property rights specifically dealing with land and possessions.
-Contractual agreements, specifically ones not enforced by violence and created by willing parties
-Man to work for his pay, and to be paid for his work
-You reap what you sow and own your production, even if others worked under you for days wages instead of getting a percentage cut of the profits (like an owner would)
-plan for the future, invest your funds, store up appropriately to offset bad times.
-You have economic free will. While there are social ties that bind, the state is not to decide your occupation for its own sake. Thats a form of slavery, which you should not take slaves. But a man can sell himself into indentured servitude.

Against marxism or any government run collectivist society has the following harms that God does not call for:
-A lie that all are equal when there is clearly still a ruling/enforcement class
-A lie that all can be equal in authority, when Christ clearly states that there is to be authority structures that all authority is extensions of his authority
-violent action against those who refuse to submit to the collectivist agreements of communism

What God does want is giving hearts, not governmental taking at the end of a weapon. You're to leave the edges of your field for the homeless. You're to deal justly and fairly in contracts. You're to settle disputes quickly and with forgiveness before going to a magistrate. Christ calling us to give up our possessions and follow Him is personal devotion to God, not an economic theory. Be poor because of your giving, not because there is nothing to go around. The jews were to have Sabbath Years every 7 years and the Year of Jubilee every 50 where economic ownership between Jewish tribes reset. That was radical, but even then, people still owned property, not the state.

Christians are to be charitable to the point of poverty, but that is against a backdrop of an economic system that allows prosperity anyway. We have a dual command to both not concern ourselves with economic systems out of our control, but also we have distributed authority through democracy to see that governance is good.

Its not so simple. Its more than just a hot take to say 'Christ wasn't a capitalist neener neener neener.' The only people cheering that on are those who quietly want to enslave you one day and force you shut up about Christ.

---

Still has nothing to do with Christianity. It's a wordly tool like anything else good or bad.

Christianity spread much deeper through the imperial process.

The spread of American Liberalism over the last century & Capitalism leading to the destruction of the family unit have been the destruction of Christianity. Not it's benefactor.

**explains how the Bible exactly shows examples of God ordered property rights and now civilization on this earth should be ordered**

**explains how humans should be giving over and above these foundational economics**

Crackerjack: ain't nothing to do with Christianity.

Alright, you do you bud. Go on back Facebook or Twitter and share your hot takes about how Christianity has nothing to say here.

Quote:

---

That is a very anti-Gospel way of thinking and extremely atomized. Do you think people have a right to kill themselves? Maim themselves? What gives us the right to tell them they don't? You have somehow meshed the idea of the Protestant work ethic into your religious views.

---

I'll be honest, I don't know how you go from "people are free to engage in commerce with each other or not" to "people are free to kill themselves".

This has nothing to do with protestant work ethic either.

Quote:

---

I have a massive obligation to my employees and they have a massive obligation to me. I have a right to expect their honest labor, and they have the right to insist I take care of their needs provided they give their honest labor. What you are saying is that I have no right to their honest labor just because I'm paying them, and they have no right to honest pay just because they're working. It sounds like nonsense to me.

---

This is completely muddled. Your relationship to them does not extend beyond whatever both parties mutually agree to. Your "right" to their honest labor is another way of saying you expect the product they provide to be as agreed. They have no right or claim on you beyond the agreed selling price of the product they are providing. They have zero - none whatsoever - claim on you beyond that.

I am saying that the employer employee relationship is not unique or special. It is no different than any other buyer-seller transaction. When you go shop as a store, you are not signing up to make sure the store stays in business. You as the buyer of labor is fundamentally identical to this transaction.

Quote:

---

Capitalism says the end goal of labor is market efficiency, Marxism says the end goal of labor is complete societal equity; the Church says the end goal of labor is to create and maintain the environment suitable for man to achieve heaven.

---

Sorry, but that's not what "capitalism says". The telos of capitalism is freedom. One of the fruits is market efficiency. Talking about capitalism's "end goal" for labor is like talking about capitalism's end goal for corn.

I don't have an issue with your end goal of labor, and I don't find what you wrote at odds with capitalism at all. Capitalism's role in that discussion is to say that people should be free to use their labor toward that goal as they see fit.

Quote:

---

Okay just pulled this from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, endorsed by Patriarch Bartholomew, it sounds very similar to what I've said, and directly attacks what you've said regarding labor being a commodity.

---

OK? This has nothing to do with the fictitious concept of a right to a just wage.

I don't even know what to make of the statement "reduction of labor to a commodity". A commodity is a fungible product. Labor is not fungible, that's why there is a massive range of labor rates for different jobs, and for different workers within a job.

///////////

Here's the bottom line. You seem to be under the impression that once someone becomes your employee, you have a fundamentally different relationship with them as a person than you did one moment before. What seems to change is not that they have agreed to exchange work for money or some other benefit, but now that you have a kind of liege lord patronage toward them, and they're in turn under some kind of fealty obligation toward you.

But you're very inconsistent with this approach, because at the same time time you say that your pay is contingent on them "laboring productively". You're not obliged to employ anyone in particular. You don't have an obligation to continue their employment. You don't have to take care of them if you can't afford it. You even qualified it that you're not on the hook until it's full time labor. But then, provided we meet all of these and probably forty seven other provisos, now we have to pay them in a way that covers basic living necessities, apparently without regard for the value of the work they're providing.

Once they no longer labor "productively" you say you don't have an obligation. This is my position anyway - just not binary. Productivity is on a scale, and the area between "not productive" and "infinitely productive" has a dollar value. Your obligation is to pay them in proportion to that value - not more, not less.

So which is it? Are you their patron or their employer? Because it seems like you want to be their patron as long as it is convenient productive for you, but when it isn't you don't feel the obligation to continue supporting them.

It is much, much simpler - and more true to the point - to separate this out. The relationship between an employer and an employee is no different than a vendor and a customer. It is no different than your relationship with a gas station, or with the grocery store. You buy a product. They sell a product.

Your relationship to them before and after they become employees is unchanged. You are not any more responsible for them before you entered into a contractual arrangement than after. Which is not to say that you are not responsible for them. You are just as responsible for them before as you were after.

And that's the real issue. Besides talking out of both sides of your mouth about the premise of the value of labor vs the value of a human person ("we value labor only as far as their productivity, and not as humans") - something which results in a strange kind of pricing of the value of a human, apparently based on what their basic needs are (if I have two more kids, does my value go up?) you've also set up a much more limited circumstance of obligation for yourselves to others.

You now have a situation where if you no longer can afford to pay someone, your obligation to them is over. You even say - I get to pay myself "modestly" first, and THEN my responsibility toward them begins. If I can't get paid modestly, I owe them nothing! You have a situation where you can choose to never have responsibility by not hiring. I don't personally employ anyone - am I free from any kind of responsibility to those around me? This is all wrong. You have responsibility toward them that is completely unrelated to their employment status. You don't get to say "Lord, when I saw you hungry you weren't my employee!" I don't think your approach is in accordance with the gospel at all.

Side rant about value. Value isn't a capitalist or marxist or Christian or non-Christian thing. It isn't pro- or anti-Christian to talk about value any more than it is pro- or anti-Christian to talk about gravity or pressure.

A value is nothing more than information about an aggregated opinion. The worth of something is an absolute reality, if difficult to measure in the aggregate. "What am I willing to pay for that" is fact. It isn't good or bad. The idea of price is one of the most interesting thing men do, because it is an incredible effective means of communication.

The way to link value to a human person is by buying and selling human persons. There is no other way. Buying and selling time in a way that is free for either party to accept or reject on an ongoing basis does not place a value on the human person. The pernicious evil of wage slavery is a situation where there is ostensible freedom of exchange but de-facto slavery, not the particular value of the work being paid.