Capitalism and Catholic morals

[Omyo12]

I have a Catholic friend who said he doesn’t believe capitalism should be boasted as much by Catholics.
His argument was:

He just doesn’t support a system which fundamentally runs on exploiting weaker people.
It is also fueled by human greed of material wealth.

Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and riches.

Matthew 6:31-33 31 So do not worry and say, “What are we to eat?” or “What are we to drink?” or “What are we to wear?” 32 All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33. But seek first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness, all these things will be given to you as well.

Instead, he believes a better system would be where the incentive is not just money but more importantly the betterment of mankind.

My only counter was:
Well, based on human nature, capitalism is the most practical system. People work harder if they have material incentives and less taxes that take away some of their “hard earned” pay…

He then replied:
But are we not just fueling this evil?
and in regards to taxes:

Matthew 22:17-21 17 Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?" 18 Knowing their malice, Jesus said, “Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin that pays the census tax.” Then they handed him the Roman coin. 20 He said to them, “Whose image is this and whose inscription?” 21 They replied, “Caesar’s.” At that he said to them, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”

Not sure what to say… or even what to think

Any thoughts?

 

[New_Covenant]

That is an important and difficult question. The CCC says the following to us:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
The challenge for the faithful is how to keep a good balance between the daily struggles of business life and, at the same time, interact in a responsible way without taking advantage of each other. In short, we accept capitalism, but not in such a way that we become bad Catholics.

 

[maryj]

This is what I know about my own parish. it is exactly those “capitalist” that do the majority of the financial supporting of our church. Of course there are us “regular” people who give money to our church also, but without those “big " donors things wouldn’t run. And just exactly what is the “betterment of mankind” would have been my first question. How does one better mankind with money? Sounds to me like this friend was saying " let’s take the rich’s money and distribute it to mankind for their betterment, we can’t count on the rich to do what’s right” Just my observations.

 

[mchale]

I think it is pretty hard for a Catholic to justify Lassez-Faire capitalism, and not just because of the excesses that it tends to engender, but also based on the mentality that seems to develop in many of its proponents – Too many of them seem to believe in the ends justifying the means and in letting the buyer beware for my comfort.

Further, I think, as Catholics, we must reject the claims of Capitalism, or indeed any economic system, as being the solution to the worlds problems (particularly our unhappiness).

Now that being said, I think, with a reasonable amount of regulation, capitalism has proven over time to be the best method of advancing the physical condition of humanity. So in and of itself, I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with capitialism provided that we keep it serving us and not us serving it.

–
Bill

 

[Omyo12]

This is what I know about my own parish. it is exactly those “capitalist” that do the majority of the financial supporting of our church. Of course there are us “regular” people who give money to our church also, but without those “big " donors things wouldn’t run. And just exactly what is the “betterment of mankind” would have been my first question. How does one better mankind with money? Sounds to me like this friend was saying " let’s take the rich’s money and distribute it to mankind for their betterment, we can’t count on the rich to do what’s right” Just my observations.

He didn’t mean redistributing wealth. He meant people working hard not for more money but for the good of mankind.

Also, as you said, if it weren’t for “capitalists” in your parish, things wouldn’t be done. However, what if the system wasn’t so dependent on money in the first place?

 

[o_mlly]

I have a Catholic friend who said he doesn’t believe capitalism should be boasted as much by Catholics.
His argument was:

He just doesn’t support a system which fundamentally runs on exploiting weaker people.
It is also fueled by human greed of material wealth.

Instead, he believes a better system would be where the incentive is not just money but more importantly the betterment of mankind.

My only counter was:
Well, based on human nature, capitalism is the most practical system. People work harder if they have material incentives and less taxes that take away some of their “hard earned” pay…

He then replied:
But are we not just fueling this evil?
and in regards to taxes:

Not sure what to say… or even what to think

Any thoughts?

I think it important that you have your friend define what he means by “capitalism.”

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Omyo12]

I think it important that you have your friend define what he means by “capitalism.”

Peace,
O’Malley

conservative unregulated laissez-faire capitalism

He also recommended a book by a Catholic economist/philosopher on the matter, next time I see him I’ll ask him who wrote it

 

[Swan]

And capitalism runs on materialism. Our economy does best when people spend regularly, generally buying things we don’t really need, only want. When spending slows, so does the economy, so it boils down to buy, buy, buy and sell, sell, sell.

 

[maryj]

He didn’t mean redistributing wealth. He meant people working hard not for more money but for the good of mankind.

Also, as you said, if it weren’t for “capitalists” in your parish, things wouldn’t be done. However, what if the system wasn’t so dependent on money in the first place?

I didn’t say things wouldn’t be done, I said things wouldn’t run, such as the lights and the heat and the ovens in the kitchens to make the food for the funerals and school lunches, to heat the oil to make the doughnuts that we sell and use the profits to support the only cathlic school on a small island in the south pacific, to turn on the lights so bible studies can happen and the plumbing can get unstuffed, so the public meetings for elderly care givers can take place…working hard for mankind involves money.

 

[Langdell]

I think American-style welfare-state capitalism is about the best system we’re likely to have unless human nature changes quite drastically. Taking everything into account, it has done a great job of improving the lives of middle-class and working-class people.

Centrally planned economies have shown themselves to do a poor job of improving standards of living, especially for those without political connections and power. Of course, standard of living isn’t an end in itself, but making it possible for the “common” people to enjoy good health, good housing, plenty of food, and so on, is quite an accomplishment.

.

 

[WillieWonka]

Market capitalism has provided more prosperity to more people than any system in history. Nothing has come even close to matching it. No religion. No ideology. No philosophy. No other economic system.

Most of the posturing today comes from people who want to control the prosperity that capitalism has produced. They don’t know how to create prosperity and wealth, but they think they are competent to manage it.

 

[DeannaMarie]

I posted in a similar thread, but want to share my thoughts here as well. I do not think that “conservative unregulated lasseiz-faire capitalism” is any more defensable from the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching than socialism or communism. One is big business, and the other is big government. In both cases, society is run top down which is contrary to the idea of subsidiarity. Joseph Pearce has written an updated version of E.F. Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful titled small is still beautiful {economics as if families mattered}. Schumacher was an economist and a Catholic convert. Pearce is a writer and a Catholic. Citing Catholic Social Documents, Pearce’s book describes an economic model that calls for a wide distribution of the means of production, called by some distributism. G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were in favor of this model. It includes small businesses, local economies (and local government), and a recognition of when one has enough money and goods. The family is the basis of society, and the government is regulated by the concept of subsidiarity. In such a model, charity is handled locally–neighbor helping neighbor. I highly recommend Pearce’s book.

 

[WillieWonka]

I posted in a similar thread, but want to share my thoughts here as well. I do not think that “conservative unregulated lasseiz-faire capitalism” is any more defensable from the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching than socialism or communism. One is big business, and the other is big government. In both cases, society is run top down which is contrary to the idea of subsidiarity. Joseph Pearce has written an updated version of E.F. Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful titled small is still beautiful {economics as if families mattered}. Schumacher was an economist and a Catholic convert. Pearce is a writer and a Catholic. Citing Catholic Social Documents, Pearce’s book describes an economic model that calls for a wide distribution of the means of production, called by some distributism. G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were in favor of this model. It includes small businesses, local economies (and local government), and a recognition of when one has enough money and goods. The family is the basis of society, and the government is regulated by the concept of subsidiarity. In such a model, charity is handled locally–neighbor helping neighbor. I highly recommend Pearce’s book.

Distributionism, Third Way, Catholic Workers, and the ideas of Day, Chesterton, and Belloc are an attempt to dream up an ideal economic system that has some connection to Catholicism. Their ideas are untested, have no track record, and there is no reason to think they would ever succeed. The literature is littered with ideas of folks who think they are smart enough to design an economy for everyone else.

What they never figured out was how to build a car under dtstributionism. Or a light bulb. Since they had no exerience in management, they didn’t have a clue what it took to really do things. Less for everyone meant happiness for everyone.

Note, all these ideas are based on someone else determining when you have enough to be happy.

Their prediction that capitalism would lead to more and more centralized ownership was proven completely wrong. Ownership has steadily expanded ever since they said it never would.

Their inspiration was the guilds of the middle ages. (Guilds that depended on legal barriers to entry, prosperity for the few, and force of the state to maintain them.)

 

[DeannaMarie]

Distributionism, Third Way, Catholic Workers, and the ideas of Day, Chesterton, and Belloc are an attempt to dream up an ideal economic system that has some connection to Catholicism. Their ideas are untested, have no track record, and there is no reason to think they would ever succeed. The literature is littered with ideas of folks who think they are smart enough to design an economy for everyone else.

What they never figured out was how to build a car under dtstributionism. Or a light bulb. Since they had no exerience in management, they didn’t have a clue what it took to really do things. Less for everyone meant happiness for everyone.

Note, all these ideas are based on someone else determining when you have enough to be happy.

Their prediction that capitalism would lead to more and more centralized ownership was proven completely wrong. Ownership has steadily expanded ever since they said it never would.

Their inspiration was the guilds of the middle ages. (Guilds that depended on legal barriers to entry, prosperity for the few, and force of the state to maintain them.)

I notice that you do not specify a religion. But as this thread is about capitalism and catholic morals, it is most appropriate to discuss an economic model that is consistent with the Catholic Faith. Catholic Teaching does not support capitalism, communism, or socialism. Pearce’s book cites Catholic Social Documents to support the distributist model. That distributism has not been tried in not an argument against it. Because it has not been tried, it has not yet been found lacking.

I would say that centralized ownership is exactly what we have now. Wal Marts replace small businesses quite regularly. However, no economic model is immune from government regulation. As we have it now, government regulation supports large corporations instead of small businesses. We have not just big business but big government as well. Distributism would require some government regulation but no more than capitalism. The difference is that government would be local rather than national.

Furthermore, no economic model can eradicate greed. Some people are never going to be happy regardless of what they have. This is the work of Faith (particularly temperance). When we separate economics from Faith, we open the door to misery.

 

[New_Covenant]

Contemporary economic theory propose that the agents of the economic system act on rational egoism, this is contrary to the social teachings of the Church and must be vigorously challenged. There can be no doubt about the power of capitalism to accumulate wealth. But the negative effects are equally visible around the world.

The social encyclicals are perfectly clear that regulating institutions, trade unions to name one, are necessary to create a responsible market place. Capitalism, in the form of “conservative unregulated lasseiz-faire capitalism”, can never be accepted by the Church. One of the problems with the advocates of this economic model is that they have an inclination to replace God with money, and put their economic theories above the social teachings. They are as fallible in this as the communists are in their outspoken atheism.

 

[WillieWonka]

I notice that you do not specify a religion. But as this thread is about capitalism and catholic morals, it is most appropriate to discuss an economic model that is consistent with the Catholic Faith. Catholic Teaching does not support capitalism, communism, or socialism. Pearce’s book cites Catholic Social Documents to support the distributist model. That distributism has not been tried in not an argument against it. Because it has not been tried, it has not yet been found lacking.

I would say that centralized ownership is exactly what we have now. Wal Marts replace small businesses quite regularly. However, no economic model is immune from government regulation. As we have it now, government regulation supports large corporations instead of small businesses. We have not just big business but big government as well. Distributism would require some government regulation but no more than capitalism. The difference is that government would be local rather than national.

Furthermore, no economic model can eradicate greed. Some people are never going to be happy regardless of what they have. This is the work of Faith (particularly temperance). When we separate economics from Faith, we open the door to misery.

 

[WillieWonka]

I notice that you do not specify a religion. But as this thread is about capitalism and catholic morals, it is most appropriate to discuss an economic model that is consistent with the Catholic Faith. Catholic Teaching does not support capitalism, communism, or socialism. Pearce’s book cites Catholic Social Documents to support the distributist model. That distributism has not been tried in not an argument against it. Because it has not been tried, it has not yet been found lacking.

I would say that centralized ownership is exactly what we have now. Wal Marts replace small businesses quite regularly. However, no economic model is immune from government regulation. As we have it now, government regulation supports large corporations instead of small businesses. We have not just big business but big government as well. Distributism would require some government regulation but no more than capitalism. The difference is that government would be local rather than national.

Furthermore, no economic model can eradicate greed. Some people are never going to be happy regardless of what they have. This is the work of Faith (particularly temperance). When we separate economics from Faith, we open the door to misery.

Distributionism was specifically dsigned to be a Catholic contribution to economics. Belloc, Day, and Chesterton rightly noticed that Cathicism wasn’t even a bit player in the struggle between socialism and capitalism. So, they came up with their Third Way.

However, the fact that an economic idea is associated with Catholicism doesn’t mean it is any good. The motivation and objectives may be fine, but that in no way tells us anything about the value of the recommended ways of implementing such objectives. That’s the problem with people who know the moral principles, but don’t know anything about economics. They screw things up.

One of the primary principles of Belloc was that ownership would continue to centralize over time as industry grew. He was totally wrong. When smart people tell each other something wrong over and over, it’s still wrong. It doesn’t matter who they are or what their religion is.

While ownership did centralize under socialism, socialism then failed.

At the same time, ownership became widely distributed under capitalism. Besides federal workers, everyone who receives a pension today gets it through ownership/lending to public companies or government bonds. Ownership of the corporations is distributed among individuals, pension funds, IRAs, mutual funds, etc. The notion that a few own these companies is a silly example of economic ignorance.

Even the model the distributionists used was one of gross inequity and exploitation. The guilds of the middle ages were very restricted, allowing entrance through heredity and using the armed force of the state to maintain their existence. Very, very few were allowed in the guilds. The rest scratched out a meager living as indentured serfs on the lands of the nobles and Church. It’s hard to find a worse model for a modern economic system.

I agree greed will be with us forever. So, the Distributionist idea that happy guildsmen will be content with less is silly. The genius of capitalism is that it has figured out how to harness individual greed to the greater good.

Market capitalism has created more prosperity for more people than any system in history. More than any religion, ideology, or government.

And Walmart? It has extremely wide distribution of ownership and it is the customer who chooses who will succeed and who will fail. Not the government. Everytime a parent buys at Walmart rather than a higher priced alternative, they increase their own prosperity.

We have separated economics from faith, and it has led to more prosperity than we have ever known. The shackles religion put on economics delivered neither prosperity nor happiness. Anyone who wants is free to live a life of happy spiritual poverty. They’re just not free to drag the rest of us down with them.

I applaud the effort to implement moral principles in economics. But those who want to do that have a responsibility to become educated and informed about economics. Too few accept that responsibility.

 

[WillieWonka]

Contemporary economic theory propose that the agents of the economic system act on rational egoism, this is contrary to the social teachings of the Church and must be vigorously challenged. There can be no doubt about the power of capitalism to accumulate wealth. But the negative effects are equally visible around the world.

The social encyclicals are perfectly clear that regulating institutions, trade unions to name one, are necessary to create a responsible market place. Capitalism, in the form of “conservative unregulated lasseiz-faire capitalism”, can never be accepted by the Church. One of the problems with the advocates of this economic model is that they have an inclination to replace God with money, and put their economic theories above the social teachings. They are as fallible in this as the communists are in their outspoken atheism.

Can you cite one example in the world today of “conservative unregulated lasseiz-faire capitalism?” Can you name one person who advocates that? That’s a straw man, and is a good reason why people don’t take the ideas you present seriously.

In the most basic case, property rights and contracting righs must be enforced by law for capitalism to exist. There’s your minimal regulation. So, can we drop the references to “conservative unregulated lasseiz-faire capitalism.” Take on the real world if you like. It’s much more satisfying.

 

[DeannaMarie]

Distributionism was specifically dsigned to be a Catholic contribution to economics. … But those who want to do that have a responsibility to become educated and informed about economics. Too few accept that responsibility.

(1) Distributism is good not because it is associated with Catholicism, but because it is based on good social and economic principles. It is not the guild model. On what basis do you argue that proponents of distributism (Belloc, Chesterton, Day, Schumacher, Pearce) are uneducated and uninformed about economics?

(2) Capitalism has created prosperity, but not happiness. The outcome of the recent presidential election suggests that many Americans are not happy with the capitalist economy.

(3) Ownership is only theoretical unless the owner has the power to make decisions. I doubt that Mr. Walton consults his employees.

(4) Greed and Voluntary Simplicity are not of equal value. My voluntary simplicity does not impact your life, but your greed does impact my life. I would be foolish to remain silent.

 

[o_mlly]

conservative unregulated laissez-faire capitalism

He also recommended a book by a Catholic economist/philosopher on the matter, next time I see him I’ll ask him who wrote it

If his definition of capitalism is “unregulated laissez-faire capitalism” (one should not use the term being defined in its definition), he can relax. No such system exists on the planet in the 21st centruy.

Peace,
O’Malley