Is capitalism a religion?

[Kuya]

Or perhaps maybe simply treated as a religion? This article is old and relatively long, but bare with me since i just heard of it. The idea is not new either, Marx basically says as much in On the Jewish Question, the part where he goes on a seemingly anti-jew rant (he is an atheist jew- confusing i know), but i would honestly like to hear some opinions on it. I will quote some parts to wet the appetite, but one really should read the entire article.

A FEW years ago a friend advised me that if I wanted to know what was going on in the real world, I should read the business pages. Although my lifelong interest has been in the study of religion, I am always willing to expand my horizons; so I took the advice, vaguely fearful that I would have to cope with a new and baffling vocabulary. Instead I was surprised to discover that most of the concepts I ran across were quite familiar.

Expecting a terra incognita, I found myself instead in the land of déjà vu. The lexicon of The Wall Street Journal and the business sections of Time and Newsweek turned out to bear a striking resemblance to Genesis, the Epistle to the Romans, and Saint Augustine's City of God. Behind descriptions of market reforms, monetary policy, and the convolutions of the Dow, I gradually made out the pieces of a grand narrative about the inner meaning of human history, why things had gone wrong, and how to put them right. Theologians call these myths of origin, legends of the fall, and doctrines of sin and redemption. But here they were again, and in only thin disguise: chronicles about the creation of wealth, the seductive temptations of statism, captivity to faceless economic cycles, and, ultimately, salvation through the advent of free markets, with a small dose of ascetic belt tightening along the way, especially for the East Asian economies.

Divine omnipotence means the capacity to define what is real. It is the power to make something out of nothing and nothing out of something. The willed-but-not-yet-achieved omnipotence of The Market means that there is no conceivable limit to its inexorable ability to convert creation into commodities. But again, this is hardly a new idea, though it has a new twist. In Catholic theology, through what is called "transubstantiation," ordinary bread and wine become vehicles of the holy. In the mass of The Market a reverse process occurs. Things that have been held sacred transmute into interchangeable items for sale. Land is a good example. For millennia it has held various meanings, many of them numinous. It has been Mother Earth, ancestral resting place, holy mountain, enchanted forest, tribal homeland, aesthetic inspiration, sacred turf, and much more. But when The Market's Sanctus bell rings and the elements are elevated, all these complex meanings of land melt into one: real estate. At the right price no land is not for sale, and this includes everything from burial grounds to the cove of the local fertility sprite. This radical desacralization dramatically alters the human relationship to land; the same happens with water, air, space, and soon (it is predicted) the heavenly bodies.

In days of old, seers entered a trance state and then informed anxious seekers what kind of mood the gods were in, and whether this was an auspicious time to begin a journey, get married, or start a war. The prophets of Israel repaired to the desert and then returned to announce whether Yahweh was feeling benevolent or wrathful. Today The Market's fickle will is clarified by daily reports from Wall Street and other sensory organs of finance. Thus we can learn on a day-to-day basis that The Market is "apprehensive," "relieved," "nervous," or even at times "jubilant." On the basis of this revelation awed adepts make critical decisions about whether to buy or sell. Like one of the devouring gods of old, The Market -- aptly embodied in a bull or a bear -- must be fed and kept happy under all circumstances. True, at times its appetite may seem excessive -- a $35 billion bailout here, a $50 billion one there -- but the alternative to assuaging its hunger is too terrible to contemplate.

There is, however, one contradiction between the religion of The Market and the traditional religions that seems to be insurmountable. All of the traditional religions teach that human beings are finite creatures and that there are limits to any earthly enterprise. A Japanese Zen master once said to his disciples as he was dying, "I have learned only one thing in life: how much is enough." He would find no niche in the chapel of The Market, for whom the First Commandment is "There is never enough." Like the proverbial shark that stops moving, The Market that stops expanding dies. That could happen. If it does, then Nietzsche will have been right after all. He will just have had the wrong God in mind.

Where i'm coming from: I don't like some of capitalism's consequences, so as a disenchanted liberal, capitalism bashing is one of my few joys.

[Faris]

what i learned:

humans would make up a religion to feed their desire to believe and worship.

nice story

[Darus Grey]

Insomuch as religions are ideologies, yes capitalism is one too.

Capitalism is really just a veil though, since it's entire core is essentially "Might makes right", and the whole capitalism, social movement, veil of meritocracy it provides is just a sugar coating to the fact that the strong enslave the weak.

It really is as simple as that.

[kuronosan]

Capitalism at its very core is simply a front for the philosophy that oppressing the less fortunate, less intelligent, or less able, is the only way to get what you want out of life, and that by offering the right price or stepping on the right person, you can achieve anything.

While I don't subscribe to the idea that capitalism = suffering, it's certainly no coincidence that the more modernized our society becomes, the less it seems to care about the group and the more it seems to care about the individual.

[Kuya]

Insomuch as religions are ideologies, yes capitalism is one too.

Capitalism is really just a veil though, since it's entire core is essentially "Might makes right", and the whole capitalism, social movement, veil of meritocracy it provides is just a sugar coating to the fact that the strong enslave the weak.

It really is as simple as that.

Implicit in the article, or rather, what one might be able to interpret from the article is that much like some argue that religions are mere veils to control the masses and take advantage of them, capitalism is equally a veil to accomplish much the same goals. Of course, some might argue that religion's purpose began as something pure, but was later corrupted, perhaps the defense of capitalism may look the same.

I don't deny that in practice (that is to say, independently of what some say free markets and capitalism -if perfect- should bring) capitalism seems to be a way for a few with lots of capital to find new and exciting ways to extract more capital from those with less.

[Mayareira]

No, its not a religion. Its just an economic system.

Bigger fish eating the small one is a part of the 3+ billion year history of the evolution and blaming solely capitalism for that is simply silly. There is a significant human factor playing a role here.

As an economic system capitalism isn't a perfect one and in long term it brings more problems than balance, one with capital in hand multiplies it overtime while one without simply makes no progress, the gap gets bigger and bigger as in (2x2=4x2=8x2=16 vs. 1x2=1x2=1 example).

That said, as long as the resources remain scarce, "who" will control the majority of them will always be a question and will bring imbalance no matter what magic system you pick.

[dudeguy]

Capitalism = market Darwinism..... Survival of the Fittest

[Yugl]

While I don't subscribe to the idea that capitalism = suffering, it's certainly no coincidence that the more modernized our society becomes, the less it seems to care about the group and the more it seems to care about the individual.

By that notion, it would follow that less modernized societies care about the group rather than the individual. Depending on how you define each (ex: individual could be oligarchs or just a single person), I can find counterexamples for such a statement. For instance, a comparison of Sweden versus Nigeria should easily demonstrate that there is a stark counterexample to your assertion.

Furthermore, the degree to which the state can help their country in developing nations may also rely on forces beyond the state's control. Latin America, for instance, implemented Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) because that is what was recommended by powerful actors who believed that nations must first build up their economy before they can effectively participate in the international economy (Post WWII). During this period, the Asian Tigers earned a major economic boost due to their adherence to a liberal market (Which reminds me, Kuya -- American liberal or Political Science liberal?). The Washington consensus attempted to grant the same economic boost to Latin America by recommending that it began efforts at liberalization (And thus, market competition). Unfortunately, Latin America never saw such a benefit and it has actually been documented that Latin American countries grew more during ISI periods than during liberalization periods.

The point is that the choice to adopt capitalism was independent of Latin America's development. This of course, is under the assumption that we're regarding capitalism as the degree to which markets mechanism are free from state manipulation and the actual functions of the market itself (Supply and demand). I'm sensing that you all are using a different definition or just detest the potential outcomes of capitalism. That said, supply and demand should be some function of individual preferences in the real world, not the spiritual. In that sense, I would argue that capitalism is not a religion.

[Egon]

Global warming is a religion too.

[dudeguy]

That was either a wiki quote or a master's thesis

[Plow]

Capitalism taken to the extreme is like basic science with the worst parts of religion thrown in.

It's based in firm concepts, but those concepts are largely about behavior, and place tremendous faith in both an "invisible force" to guide everything and trust in things we really can't be absolutely certain will be true.

It's like a lot of things, good in moderation.

[Kuya]

By that notion, it would follow that less modernized societies care about the group rather than the individual. Depending on how you define each (ex: individual could be oligarchs or just a single person), I can find counterexamples for such a statement. For instance, a comparison of Sweden versus Nigeria should easily demonstrate that there is a stark counterexample to your assertion.

Furthermore, the degree to which the state can help their country in developing nations may also rely on forces beyond the state's control. Latin America, for instance, implemented Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) because that is what was recommended by powerful actors who believed that nations must first build up their economy before they can effectively participate in the international economy (Post WWII). During this period, the Asian Tigers earned a major economic boost due to their adherence to a liberal market (Which reminds me, Kuya -- American liberal or Political Science liberal?). The Washington consensus attempted to grant the same economic boost to Latin America by recommending that it began efforts at liberalization (And thus, market competition). Unfortunately, Latin America never saw such a benefit and it has actually been documented that Latin American countries grew more during ISI periods than during liberalization periods.

The point is that the choice to adopt capitalism was independent of Latin America's development. This of course, is under the assumption that we're regarding capitalism as the degree to which markets mechanism are free from state manipulation and the actual functions of the market itself (Supply and demand). I'm sensing that you all are using a different definition or just detest the potential outcomes of capitalism. That said, supply and demand should be some function of individual preferences in the real world, not the spiritual. In that sense, I would argue that capitalism is not a religion.

Liberal in political science terms. Well, i suppose ambiguously social democrat might be more accurate if we think of liberalism as a catch all term or as the concrete ideology developed around the time of the Enlightment (which includes capitalism as one of its products).

Interestingly, what you call ISI has been criticized as merely a structure positioned for the benefit of richer nations, by which they would have poorer nations provide them with raw materials while the richer countries flood the poorer markets with manufactured goods, much the same way empires would siphon raw goods from their colonies and sell 'manufactured' goods to their colonies which are captive buyers. In other words, the poorer countries would see poor returns while the richer countries would get much richer from the relationship. And economic liberalization, also known as globalisation, was, as you said, much worse, and is credited with having ruined Latin American countries, but i notice you did not mention that economic liberalization played a role in the economic crisis of 1997 which hit, largely, the Asian Tigers, which a writter i've read comments that some say was a specifically formulated plan to sabotage the Asian Tigers.

I am assuming that free markets, that is, markets without State intervention (probably something that is non-existant, but that is, i suppose, the point) is part of the concept of capitalism.

[Kerberoz]

Capitalism taken to the extreme is like basic science with the worst parts of religion thrown in.

Capitalism = psychology?

[Kuya]

Capitalism taken to the extreme is like basic science with the worst parts of religion thrown in.

It's based in firm concepts, but those concepts are largely about behavior, and place tremendous faith in both an "invisible force" to guide everything and trust in things we really can't be absolutely certain will be true.

It's like a lot of things, good in moderation.

This is essentially the social democrat position, which is fallacious, but since there are no better options, it's what we have to deal with.

[Klaatu]

I would think it's more of an addiction.

[Cadsuane]

Gonna try a a tl;dr translation:

First Paragraph:
Capitalism is propped up by the same doublespeak that holds up religion

Second:
Purchasing something debases what can otherwise be meaningful and sacred. In a free market everything is for sale, so nothing has value.

Third:
Economics and market speculation is idolatry.

Fourth:
The only incentive capitalistic markets have is to grow, and that greed is dangerous and self-destructive.

Pretty language, but too moralistic to be insightful.

[Kuya]

Pretty language, but too moralistic to be insightful.

To be expected of a theologian i suppose.

Capitalism = psychology?

Not touching that one, although i've been somewhat curious whether people are mostly critical of psychiatry (i am not taking into account criticism from academia).

[Faris]

people are confusing usury with capitalism...capitalism is a trade/economic system.

it has many different approaches and perspectives, that people often find it difficult to define the general system itself

cant be a religion, religions have a path in capitalism.

islam, judaism, christianity; and i think more religions have a certain do's and don'ts as far as capitalism is concerned

[Demosthenes11]

the real shame is only having one timeline to look at. We only have the history of man to refer to when we study the progression of though, government, and economies. In that regard, marx could very well be right that capitalism is simply a step that must be taken in order to reach pure communism. His means to bring communism into fruition may be wrong, but who knows about the product

[Cadsuane]

To be expected of a theologian i suppose.

Upon reflection actually, points 1 and 3 merit some thought. 2 is mysticism and doesn't really work for either the capitalists or socialists in the audience since they're both materialists, and 4 is just silly atavism.