It occured to me that capitalism isn't really economy. Economy is about the responsible management of resources, and when we look at the way we treat money, that is hardly what it is about. It is about the highest possible profit, regardless of the effects elsewhere. It is about the fabrication of needs, and how to increase the rate of consumption. The guiding star is not how much one needs, but rather how much one can possibly get.
False on three accounts. Economy deals with the sum of all transactions that occur between agents, be they individuals or groups of individuals. It has no say as to how resources are distrbuted, manufactured, etc. Secondly, capitalism does not necessitate accruing the highest possible profit, but only some profit. Gaining the highest possible profit is merely a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. Thirdly, the fabrication of needs is usually done, in part, by public relations agents, who are either profit or non-profit. This means, then, that capitalism does not necessitate that entrepeneurs, venture capitalists, or the like will hire public relations specialists to garner appeal for the products/services that they offer. Once again, this is merely a sufficient condition. They may do so in the hopes of gaining profits, which is desirable, since we do not operate under an evenly-rotating economy.
The bold claim I wish to make is that capitalsm isn't economy, but rather religion. It is a faith founded on economic principles, twisting and perverting those principles until the system is one of theology rather than economy. That some must live in poverty for others to prosper is a belief, made true because it is built into the capitalistic system.
Then you have to provide some sort of argument in favor of your position, which you have yet to do. And you also have to argue that the above defintions, which are unconventional, should be accepted. Additionally, capitalism does not necessitate that some must live in poverty for others. It is possible, a priori, that no one is impoverished under a capitalistic system. And this, of course, assumes that people, out of necessity, live in poverty for others. There may be extraneous factors. Hell, maybe said people are living in poverty because they choose to do so.
Here is the thing. What would happen if I decided that I wanted no part of the capitalistic worship of things?
You're conflating capitalism with consumerism and materialism. Capitalism does not have in any say regarding the worship of "things".
And there is nothing stopping you from participating in the "capitalistic worship of things". Monks have been getting along just fine without it for hundreds of years.
What if I demanded an alternative way of contributing, based on religious freedom. We have that in this country. Supposedly, I should not be able to be forced to participate in anyone's religious rituals.
You can contribute in an alternate way. Why do you think the clergy exist? They only need a small penance for what they do (unless you work for a mega church).
The problem is that we don't see it as religion.
Because it's not a religion, but an economic theory. There is no problem once we understand what capitalism "is".
Work with me, if you are so inclined. How can we add weight to this outrageous idea?
Hope this clears things up.