Christianity: Free Market or Communist?

[ebola?]

I've already discussed the following issue with 'vack in private, but I'll make my thoughts public (because my ego is inflated that much).

>>But the gradual decline in the percentage of the population doing farming has occurred along with population growth (which is fueled by technological advance). When a farmer's son moves to the city and becomes an engineer, he might design a machine that makes farming more efficient. Also, certain areas of land will lose their fertility whether there is livestock production or not. It depends on the type and depth of soil, and the density of livestock population.

The town/country division was establishing itself far before modern capitalism. Theoretically, it began the instant when there were more humans than were required to farm enough food.

I think citing capitalism as the cause of metabolic "rift" is a rather weak line of argument, only because it doesn't help explain anything.

He says "capitalist agriculture turned the peasant into an urban proletarian."

But why not just say, "increasing agricultural technology gradually reduced the number of people required to farm enough food"? >>

I think you may be taking too "hard" a reading of Foster. I think he is arguing that capitalist development is one factor amongs several (albeit an important one) which has shaped human economic development in such a way as to foster (ha! get it?) the division of town and country and metabolic rift. I think that with the rise of the profit motive and acceleration of production due to capitalism's expansionary nature, we saw the ascent of the division between town and country arise as it did because such an arrangement was most efficient (efficiency being framed in terms of profitability). It was also the capitalist framework, principally the associated spreading commodification, that allowed the calculation of this efficiency. If a different system were in place, perhaps agricultural sites and dense human population centers would have developed to be more tightly integrated...but such hypothetical speculation is dubious when there is such a large number of relevant historical factors.

I should also note that in terms of the actual history of capitalist development in Europe, the ascent of capitalism did play a central role in proletarianizing the serfs. That is, the land occupied by the serfs was seized by the ermerging bourgeoisie and anti-vagrancy laws were passed, forcing these former serfs to turn to wage-labor.

All this having been said, it is likely the case that the simple production of surplus itself and increasing technological development, both of which being at the very least partially distinct from capitalist processes, had a hand in fostering the division between town and country.

ebola

 

[fungus44]

^^^^Oui oui again. The driving off of peasants from rural areas to cities ws massive and led to the adoption of anit-vagrancy laws.

The town/country division was establishing itself far before modern capitalism. Theoretically, it began the instant when there were more humans than were required to farm enough food.

Outside a few minor exceptions there was little rift between town and country before capitalism. The "theoretically" discussed theory of surplus production provided the original basis for the creation of class society.

I think citing capitalism as the cause of metabolic "rift" is a rather weak line of argument, only because it doesn't help explain anything.

He says "capitalist agriculture turned the peasant into an urban proletarian."

But why not just say, "increasing agricultural technology gradually reduced the number of people required to farm enough food"?

There's a big difference. It's a question of social relations, not technology or a percentage of people needed to work the land. In an increasingly few number of places, there are peasants who have a sense of common ownership, experience, and traditional
use of land. This is a large part of the basis of the Zapatista rebellion in Mexico in 1994. The people of Chiapas declared their common ownership of agricultural land with the common
cause of the Mexican people -- one of a collective good, democracy, alleviation of poverty, women's rights and ecology.

The whole history of the movements of proletarianized peoples is one of people kicking and screaming at the the injustices being done to them. The best and clearest example is Edward Thompson's History of the English Working Class. The book is really the story of the destruction of a peasant-artisan class and the creation of an urban proletariat.

On a side note, labourstart.org featured a book recently on Xtianity and US labor. Anybody come across it? Couldn't find it on Labourstart.

 

[Jimmy the Gun]

Regarding the question of christianity's perfered economic system, the free will aspect of christianity would point to a system of no governmental regulation. All regulation would be imposed on a individual/community basis. This is true free will.

As follows, some people get totally screwed.

Christianity's answer for this is that god is actually protecting the unfortunate and punishing the sinners. The following is a passage from the old testament, but still seems to preached by modern christianity. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me because I'm not a bible/christianity expert.

Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

What I get from this is that according to christianity, life in general is capatalistic. In order to be saved, one best adopt a personal philosophy of charity and good will for all; interestingly, these values are central to the ideology of communism.

When it comes to the economic systems of nation states, I personally favor those with liberal/socialist leanings. While this is perhaps a topic for another thead, I would like to note that I do not consider my self to be a christian. Also, I would definately agree that the majority of christians in the western world do not seem to be practicing any type of liberatarian system or personal expression of charity. I would therefore consider my self to be more christian than the bulk of modern day lip-servicers.