Capitalism - the Ultimate Religion

[Tiberius]

The result was a partly correct quote and partly a new statement. But by no stretch of the imagination can the whole resulting sentence be described as a quote, I think we are agreed on that.

No we aren't agreed on that. The entire resulting sentence can be described as quote, because it is something Zen Badger came up with. Quotes aren't reserved for the rich and famous; anyone can make them.

so there is no way that I or anybody can point to a place where Zen Badger attributed a quote to Churchill

Excellent. So if the quote isn't attributed to Churchill, it can't be a misquote, since (as you pointed out) a misquote is quoting incorrectly. If there is no source given for the quote, you have no basis for saying it is a misquote. Similarly, if it is clear that the quote is being created by the speaker (Zen Badger), then it cannot be a misquote, unless you want to say that the speaker is misquoting himself on the fly...

hence my personal preference for using the word misquote, which conveys the idea of inaccurate translation unambiguously.

...despite the fact that there was no inaccuracy in the quote, seeing as it was original.

Add to this my personal view that Winston Churchill was such a master of the English language that his original words really need no amendment, and I think my use of the word misquote is entirely appropriate.

In this case, the original words had nothing to do with capitalism, so the amendment by Zen Badger was entirely reasonable. The sentence structure (X is the worst system, but for all the others) is a very nice way of putting things, but Churchill was a very busy man and I didn't expect him to make a large number of similar quotes for the benefit of anyone in the future who wants to convey ideas differently.

As ever I would say these things are probably a matter of personal preference - people do use the same words differently, after all.

No, that's just you. Oh, and anyone else who objects or doesn't know about the dictionary.

ultimately I wouldn't take away somebody's right to choose words themselves - if we did that, we might as well stick a gag on their mouths and ban them from speaking or even writing, and that would be an appalling affront to human dignity, wouldn't it?

People can choose words themselves; nobody is stopping them. What we do stop people from doing is choosing arbitrary definitions for words as you seem to love doing. We have a set of words in a language, and they all have specific definitions as laid out in the dictionary. You and all others here are politely asked to use those dictionary definitions (Oxford English Dictionary or Cambridge Dictionary are very good places to start) when speaking here.

[Existentialist]

What we do stop people from doing is choosing arbitrary definitions for words as you seem to love doing.

I totally deny choosing definitions for words arbitrarily. That is yet another ridiculous allegation. Why are you doing this? I have taken great care to choose my words very carefully throughout this thread, even where you have repeatedly taken it off topic.

In your latest reply, you have quoted my words incompletely, and in particular you have ignored crucial sentences which are important to my case such as the one about sourcing and attribution. Your case seems to be based on your notion that "If there is no source given for the quote, you have no basis for saying it is a misquote." I have already dealt with this twice, and you have failed to provide an adequate response, each time reverting to your subjective opinion that a misquote must always be sourced, which is not stated anywhere in any of the dictionaries that you obviously revere.

I am sorry but I am out of time this morning as I have to work for a living. I will try to start a thread on this later on the week because I think it is a separate subject from the question of whether or not capitalism is the ultimate religion, to which I would for the fourth time invite you to return.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Adrian - this is the sixth time you've said you have a different opinion from me about this rather pedantic matter - and you accuse me of being argumentative?

Can you say Irony?

[Zen Badger]

@ Adrian and Exxy.

Get a room you two.

I'm sure we all know what I mean't when I made the original post.

Now move along, there's nothing to see here.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

But capitalism is only an economic system in the way that our daily meals are only a source of energy. There is a vast cultural and culinary infrastructure, and a vast range of emotional reactions to them - and without them, we could soon sink into chaos. The fact that capitalism is an economic system doesn't prevent it from being a social and political system, or a regulator of all our interactions. As Marx put it, "The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society."

Eh... This is assinine. Yes, an economic system is an important one and it determines a great deal of things in terms of how we live our daily lives. That's how society and economic systems work.
But you've failed to make any case for an economic system being a religion. You've only made the case of economic systems being important to the daily life of the citizens who live in these economic systmes.
A religion has a specific definition that I provided and you have not provided any satisfactory explaination as to how Capitalism is a religion in any sense of the term. You've only highlighted its importance and stated (and I'm paraphrasing here) that because it's important it must be a religion.
If I lived in an ideal communist society with a democratically elected government that hasn't been corrupted (somehow) then that doesn't mean I worship the government or the system that defines my life in much the same way that living in a capitalist society doesn't mean I worship the dollar like christians worship god or jesus. (Although some particularly greedy capitalists might.) Either way, it doesn't provide any of the essential points to define an economic system as a religion.

I apologise if I gave the impression I did not know what capitalism is. I have since posted more on this but by all means come back to me if you think I need to provide better explanations. Capitalism clearly is the economic system (which, being so dominant, extends to all human relations) characterised by the formation and augmentation of capital. Religion is a theistic system of thought, activity and ideas. My argument is that because capital has assumed God-like status, capitalism has become a religion - the ultimate, all-embracing, dominant one.

Capitalism or any economic system doesn't extend to all human relations. It's pertinent to many kinds of human relations but saying that ALL human relations are affected by an economic system is a hyperbole.

re·li·gion   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

cap·i·tal·ism   /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

As you'll no doubt notice, they are completely different in definition. There is no overlap. The best arguement you have is that people can devote themselves to capitalism like it was a religion, but that does not qualify capitalism as a religion.

Well I'm aware of the phrase tin-foil hat conspiracy. Could you elaborate on how you think it relates to my paragraph quoted here, I see no connection at all.

No surprise there.
Just as with 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, and a few other movements that have cropped up since '09 and many before, your beliefs reek of people doing things behind closed doors and secret wheelings and dealings for a fundemental purpose that only you seem to notice.

[Existentialist]

Thanks for your post TheDarkestofAngels, I will read it and reply as soon as I can - I'll just throw this one into the pot first, which I've been preparing this evening, all replies welcome.

To continue the theme I started in Post 54 of this thread, it is not just Walter Benjamin who appears to accept the ineluctable nature of capitalism - the same universal, indisputable, authoritarian and all-pervasive nature that one might associate with the medieval Roman Catholic Church. No less as figure than Max Weber is also cited, describing capitalism's unavoidable powers, in the same publication I discovered the other day, (p67) by Michael Löwy:-

"First of all because, as we have seen, capitalism, by defining itself as the natural and necessary form of the modern economy, does not admit any different future, any way out, any alternative. Its force is, writes Weber, ‘irresistible’, and it presents itself as an inevitable fate".

Löwy goes on,

"The system reduces the vast majority of humanity to ‘damned of the earth’ who cannot hope for divine salvation, since their economic failure is the sign that they are excluded from God’s grace."

These kinds of passages are music to my ears. While I might muse that if Weber and Benjamin were alive today, the impact they could make on the nature of the debate about what atheism can contribute to the development of humanity would play havoc with the narrow boundaries of atheism as defined by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and their like, I realise this thinking on my part arises from celebrity culture. The truth is that there are many thousands of Max Webers and Walter Benjamins who could easily shift the debate generated by modern atheism in away from the islamophobic, anti-faith backwater in which it currently languishes, and instead reinvigorate more comprehensive discussions about the religious and theistic principles that govern the whole of our modern society. However at the moment there are also many people who have more confidence acting individually and together to block wider debate by concentrating collective intellectual efforts on less important and even trivial subjects. There is no particular reason why it should remain like this, and I suspect that as resistance to the current right-wing onslaught on ordinary people grows, the freedoms assumed by previously unheard atheists will flourish, and the debates will shift to more liberating ground than we are currently witnessing.[/align],

[Existentialist]

Thanks again TheDarkestofAngels. I'll answer the points in your post in what seems to be a logical order.

As Marx put it, "The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society."

later...

Capitalism or any economic system doesn't extend to all human relations. It's pertinent to many kinds of human relations but saying that ALL human relations are affected by an economic system is a hyperbole.

Admittedly, Marx referred to the bourgeoisie, so in this case I would have to paraphrase him to make his meaning explicit to the capitalist system itself, but if the meaning of his sentence is taken to include capitalism, basically all you are saying is that you think Karl Marx is guilty of hyperbole. That's fine - you're not the first person to accuse Marx of hyperbole and I'm sure you won't be the last, nevertheless I am grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate our two differing opinions on this forum. And I do disagree with you - I think the words attributed to Marx are very accurate description of the relationship of all of us to both the bourgeoisie and capitalism as a whole - I think capitalism has affected all human relations.

I would suggest that this profound disagreement between us on very deep level is the real reason you are taking issue with my description of capitalism as a religion, your other argument which involves dictionaries is just an attempt to insulate your position from my unashamedly subjectively-arrived at assertions by invoking the dictionary as an iconic oracle of supposed objectivity, which of course it isn't. It's just a guide to the popular usage of the day.

Even if the dictionary were an oracle of objectivity, which I categorically deny it is, the way you've copied and pasted from dictionary.com means that unfortunately you've lost that web page's italics and therefore you have, I suspect inadvertently, though rather conveniently for you, implied that what dictionary.com cites as possible examples are actual definitions! Here's what dictionary.com actually says.



Now with the dictionary quoted correctly, and looking more like the original it's easier to go through it and see how capitalism fits. From what I can see, capitalism, being (in my and Marx's opinion) a system that revolutionises the whole relations of society, ticks the boxes of definitions number 2, 3, 5 (by reference to 2 and 3), and 6. For me it ticks all these boxes because for capitalists (and there are many), capitalism is has an ideological basis and is not just an accidental economic system. Indeed there are strong arguments for capitalism to tick the box of definition number 1 as well since many capitalist supporters would say that capitalism is indeed a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Yes, really - there are such people around!

Of course, my own arguments do not depend on simply the content of dictionaries. If that were the case, then frankly I think that microprocessors are now so powerful that we could easily program computers to talk to each other and then print out the answers to a lot of major political and ethical arguments without us ever having to think about them. That would be like a bad episode of Star Trek (the original series, not the Next Generation or Voyager obviously). Luckily we don't live in that particular universe. In reality dictionaries can't dictate meanings to us, they can only report approximations to the most popular usage. If dictionaries were the real source of definitions, neologisms would never arise. Dictionaries can only ever be a guide to popular usage. The real definitions of words are to be found in every individual's human experience, beliefs, senses, ideas, emotions and a load of other things. This is why it takes effort for people to understand each other, and they do not always succeed, let alone agree.

Also it appears you have been somewhat selective. Dictionary.com also gives the following definitions from a different dictionary.


So definition number 5 easily fits, and I argued earlier that capital is treated as a God - a supernatural power considered to be divine, so 1 fits to - for me, you of course can disagree, I'm not stopping you.

If I could also mention one other thing. Dictionary.com also cites quotations on the same web page to aid the understanding of usage even further. Here's one that cites two things that are different as being the same. Is this assinine too?



To round off, it is not because capitalism is merely "important" in people's lives that I define it as a religion, it is because it is revolutionary in every aspect of their lives. I do not rely on dictionary definitions to make my mind up what words mean because I think the way words are used is vastly more personal than that, however as it happens, I can easily make capitalism fit the dictionary definitions you have cited. Just because two dictionary definitions look different does not mean that they do not overlap or merge in meaning. In any event a concept like capitalism cannot be adequately defined by a dictionary which can only provide a rough guide to popular usage, not legislate against new usages. That's why people write books about capitalism - at least in part, to define it better. Same with religion.

Obviously I don't present this reply to your post as an isolated defence of my opinion that capitalism is a religion. I also offer my other posts citing Max Weber and Walter Benjamin, which I'd also invite you to comment on. I think, all in all, I am in reasonably respectable company in my views.

[Tiberius]

I'm sure we all know what I mean't when I made the original post.

I do. Existentialist either doesn't and will not accept the obvious, or he accepts the obvious and is simply trolling.

My money is still with the latter, despite all his objections.

[gmjackson]

Capitalism, unlike many religions, is testible and it's material in that it brings one material wealth. One of my favorite atheists was Ayn Rand who was pro-capitalist. She found capitalism to be very consistent with atheism. The existence of capitalism depends on individuals who think for themselves, who don't depend on an authority figure like a god or priest or politician. Individuals can't think for themselves if they are not free. Thus it is no accident that societies with greater freedom have more capitalism. Is capitalism a perfect system? No, but can you think of a system that has brought more material wealth to a greater number of people? And while you are pondering, how much material wealth has religion brought you?

[Existentialist]

Thanks for that reply gmjackson. Thanks also for introducing me to Ayn Rand. I would need to study her in more detail, I've added her to my reading list (it's long!). Interestingly at first glance I would probably agree with her on a lot of things. Just because I am positively exploring the idea that capitalism is a religion, and I believe Marx offered the best analysis of it, if not the most comprehensive, doesn't mean to say I am automatically against capitalism or think that its overthrow would inevitably result in a better society. I'm not about to trust any communist further than I could throw them!

I would say that if objectivism was Ayn Rand's philosophy, subjectivism is mine, and if people find their authentic self in following a religion I have far more respect for them than I would if someone were an atheist but being inauthentic and inconsistent about it. Same goes for people finding their authentic voice in the religion of capitalism, though quite honestly I don't come across it very much. For me respect is really about how much somebody can demonstrate their ability to rely on themselves and trust themselves rather than to rely on false ideas of objectivity or rely on false hopes of independent adjudication to determine what is right. Ayn Rand seems like a mixed bag to me - I mean that nicely. Apologies for scooting over the subject - this is just first impressions.