Hacker News Reader

Comment by phaedryx | Hacker News Reader

"What made you want to switch to the employee-owned model?"

"I came up here to study the Bible, and the Bible says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And so there’s an element of how you treat people that impressed me. And sharing in the profit, sharing in the company to make things more fair and more benevolent impressed me, and I felt strongly about it."

source: https://www.pdxmonthly.com/eat-and-drink/2023/02/bobs-red-mi...

It's always interesting to me to see how Christianity intersects with capitalism.

View on HN

The earliest corporations were created by monasteries as a way of pooling collective resources without requiring heredity bonds or government enforcement.

Fast forward to the enlightenment and new understanding of universal human rights implies that all people (not just monarchs) should have rights to property including ownership stakes of enterprises. And that the actions of enterprises should be overseen by boards.

Our modern idea that prices should be publicly posted and fair, and that losses should be born by businesses was created out of Quaker practices of equality.

>was created out of Quaker practices of equality

If you have a link to some reading material about this, I'd love to check it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_tag

> "The Pennsylvania Quakers" "honest price" was institutionalized in 1874 by John Wanamaker, when he opened his eponymous department store in Philadelphia. A renowned innovator of the highest integrity, Wanamaker was the first retailer to offer money-back guarantees. He also invented the price tag: "A devout Christian, he believed that if everyone was equal before God, then everyone should be equal before price." Before Wanamaker's, every purchase was open to a haggle."

Thanks, this gives me a starting point to find out more about it. Very interesting!

> It's always interesting to me to see how Christianity intersects with capitalism.

The parable of the three talents is pretty instructive. It is considered a good work to run a business and employ people, to put them to useful work, and to pay them a fair wage so that they may raise a family.

I always go back to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_rich_young_man

"Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven." Luke 18:8-18:30

The biblical writers could not have been more clear on this topic. Prosperity theology is heresy.

Is Jesus saying earning money is bad or that hoarding it is bad? If you earn a lot of money and give to charity, take care of your community, and spend it for the betterment of your neighbors does this make it hard to get into heaven?

Jesus speaks in parables for a reason.

Individual behavior notwithstanding, prosperity theology is exactly about hoarding wealth [1]:

> When deconstructed, there is a great deal in the doctrines and practices of the movement, which concurs with Wade Clark Roof’s view that North American ‘supply-side spirituality’ has always carried the assumption that the individual is entitled to an endless supply of material satisfactions.

What largesse its individual adherents may - and, under their own rule, may not! - distribute, detracts nothing from the school's focus on worldly acquisitiveness.

The state of their souls is a matter between them and what they worship. Having had firsthand opportunity to observe their behavior as well as their teaching, I have not in either sense seen them particularly interested in following the examples Christ gave and set.

What they are doing is attempting to collapse the parable, and have the riches of heaven while they live on earth. If there is a hell, this will land them there.

[1] https://doi.org/10.1080%2F713676038

I'm not defending the prosperity "theology" in any way, which is why I said He speaks in parables, as evil people always hear what they want to hear anyways, and reveal themselves in doing so.

The prosperity defense of the parable is that it was actually referencing a specific gate in Jerusalem that was very narrow and hard to get a camel through, so you had to unload your camel and get it to kneel through the gate. So you just have to be "humble."

I think most people recognize it as hogwash.

That may be optimistic, because exactly like Scientology they prey upon the desperate. I knew them a long time ago; there are many more people now in such a state.

They further indict themselves in so doing, of course: 'As you do to the least of these...' But they still do it.

I don't wish to seem as if I seek an argument with you, and I also do not wish them to have the privilege of ever claiming they did it all unawares.

While we think of "rich" as a quantity, I think in the parable "rich" refers to a state of mind.

In the parable (the parable of the "rich young ruler") it is the "love of money" which is the fundamental issue, not the quantity of it.

Some people are able to attract large quantities of money, yet are able to flow that money to others well. Others have much less, but their love of money leads to exploitation, hoarding, jealousy, covetousness, selfishness and so on.

The "love of money" is in many ways the antithesis of Christian theology. Which is why the parable explains how it's a fundamental stumbling block - what we'd call a deal-breaker.

American Christians are unfortunate to live in a secular culture which values money over everything else, and this has permeated into the church culture. One need look no further than the political support, by professing Christians, to a "rich man" rather than to a "Godly man" within their own party.

The "love of money" is the root of all evil, not the money itself.

As long as we're linking to the Wikipedia article for parables, the one OP was referring to deserves a fair shake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents

Luke 18 is always my go to for anyone claiming to be Christian but also a capitalist

They are mutually exclusive

> Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle

There is controversy behind what was actually written. https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2023/11/camel.html

Mostly quotes have modern contexts and the meaning is defined by your modern community - perhaps nothing to do with what was actually said.

If we are allowed modern solutions then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38461089

Just old-school memes to my thinking.

> It is considered a good work to run a business and employ people, to put them to useful work, and to pay them a fair wage so that they may raise a family.

Unfortunately that parable is about slaves, unfair retribution, and "But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.". Maybe means something entirely different in the Talmud.

I don't go to church, but I went to a wealthy demographic service to help a friend and that parable was mentioned - weird money-oriented Anglican service.

To me, it's a allegory for the soul. The talent is the soul. The gift given to you by God. The servants all started with the same gift. Some servants used that gift to lift up the other souls around them, presumably out of despair and into the light. The other decided that he should hide his gift and only think for himself.

It's God's commandment to put your life to the purpose of bettering others. Merely showing up to Heaven with only your own soul to account for is not what he wants.

> It's always interesting to me to see how Christianity intersects with capitalism.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a Danish person, in reference to their welfare system: "some call it socialism - in Denmark we call it Christianity."

It seems likely that Socialism would not exist without Christianity. We know that the early Christians were essentially communist - they owned everything in common. Christianity taught that wealth should not be hoarded but used to improve people's lives in community. That every person is created in the image of God and thus has value no matter what they can (or cannot) do - meaning that disabled and old people had just as much right to live as anyone else.

Now the dominant American expression of Christianity (Evangelicalism) teaches that socialism is some kind of evil and has politically aligned itself with the owner class.

That’s because it got wrapped up in right wing politics. It used to be evangelicals were equally likely from both parties. Then Regan courted them and the rest is history.

Indeed. Jimmy Carter was (is) an Evangelical. They turned their back on their own to go after Reagan.

Way earlier than that - once Constantine claimed to have seen a cross and heard God saying "In hoc signo vinces" (Under this sign you will conquer), Christianity was forever connected with Empire.

> It seems likely that Socialism would not exist without Christianity.

I may be drunk, but I can't believe this argument is being made

I was not aware that Christianity had some sort of monopoly of "be nice".

In the US socialism/communism got tied to the state atheism of the Soviets and China which is why there is the political divide

> It's always interesting to me to see how Christianity intersects with capitalism.

Indeed. There are many different Christian views on capitalism ranging from being outright anti-capitalism to the prosperity gospel which encourages it's adherents to get rich (and views riches as a sign of God's blessing - this is why that particular group could overlook so much of Trump's seemingly unchristian actions and values - they figured he's rich so he must be blessed by God).

Bob's Christian philosophy seems to have been somewhere between those two extremes. He definitely didn't view wealth as something to be hoarded, he used it to help lift up his workers and his community.

Catholic doctrine on the issue sounds pretty close to Bob's - see Rerum Novarum [1], Quadragesimo Anno [2], Populorum Progressio [3], Centesimus Annus [4], Caritas in Veritate [5], and Fratelli Tutti [6] for various expressions of the doctrine over the modern era.

Or, if you want a shorter version see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_destination_of_goods

[1]: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docum... [2]: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docume... [3]: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/docume... [4]: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/d... [5]: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/d... [6]: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/docu...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com