Capitalism and Catholicism: Consistently Incompatible

[jgassner]

Brothers and sisters, in response to the radically conservative sentiments which have hampered constructive Christian efforts in the worldwide Catholic Church, especially in the United States, I would like to address the incompatibility the capitalist system presents to our Catholic faith.

Although many professed Catholics are quick to reject socialism as a solution to the extreme inequity of the world, the same Catholics consistently fail to acknowledge just what an affront to Christianity global Capitalism poses. Let us earnestly compare the Capitalist tenant of “survival of the fittest”, with the Christian tenant of “love thy neighbor as yourself”, and it should become immediately apparent that one cannot support Capitalism and be a Christian in good standing. This is evident by observation of the cruel subjugation, exploitation, and de-facto played out by the mechanisms of Global Capitalism in the cases of numerous countries of South East Asia, Latin America, and indeed in the inner-cities of the United States as well as the Ghettos of Europe.

We are charged as Christians to build the Kingdom of Heaven. Perhaps the first step towards this goal should be tearing down the mechanism of Capitalism which have stratified our world among the rich and poor for much of human history. I pray you my brothers and sisters look earnestly upon my words and provide this thread with the incite of your own consciences.

 

[ribozyme]

We are charged as Christians to build the Kingdom of Heaven. Perhaps the first step towards this goal should be tearing down the mechanism of Capitalism which have stratified our world among the rich and poor for much of human history. I pray you my brothers and sisters look earnestly upon my words and provide this thread with the incite of your own consciences.

What do you mean for much of human history? Other economic systems besides capitalism (I’ll assume your definition of capitalism is synonymous with “neoliberalism”) exist that can exploit the economically vulnerable. Feudalism and slavery are types of economic systems that also lead to perverse stratification and misery for the unfortunate. Such systems were also endorsed by Christianity. The former system apparently seems to be justified using a “divine right basis” (and Western Civilization is indebted to John Locke for providing intellectual arguments to debunk this) and was similar to the “chain of being” medieval cosmology and the latter is justified by some Christians. For example, in one slave catechism, the answer to the question “What did God make you for” the given answer was “To make a crop.” (Although I have not taken a deep analysis of this, Paul apparently is tolerent of slavery in Philemon when he tells slaves should accept the authority of their mundane masters. Correct me if I am wrong.)

I think the antidote to the misery caused (directly or indirectly) is a system of ethics based on utilitarianism. One must thank people such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill for their intellectual work promoting utilitarianism.

Well, regarding the alleged evils of socialism and neoliberalism, it appears that Latin America isn’t buying rhetoric of “economic freedom” that neoliberalism’s advocates use given the recent failed referendum of Evo Morales.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps you can help us find capitalism before you ask us to help you in tearing it down.

Please define “capitalism”. Refrain, if you will, from statements like “the system by which the rich rob the poor”. That tells us nothing. Tell us precisely how it works and who is in charge of the system. You can’t tear something down without knowing how it’s built.

Then, if you will, tell us your proposal as to how it gets dismantled.

I’m serious in asking these things. I have seen it said that “capitalism” is, in its most extreme sense, the absence of any system at all. It’s just “what people do on their own” in the economic sphere. Things can be put in place to regulate what people do, to one degree or another, and are. If those regulations roughly fit one pattern, people tend to refer to it as the “rule of law”. Some refer to it as the “rule of the marketplace”. Add more things to it and at some point some people start calling it “socialism”.

Having seen so many definitions that don’t agree, I’m not sure the statement that capitalism is the absence of a system, is incorrect. I’m not persuaded that any of the “isms” have a precise meaning, and perhaps “capitalism” is the least meaningful term of all.

So, tell us precisely what you mean and what you would do about it. .

 

[Ridgerunner]

What do you mean for much of human history? Other economic systems besides capitalism (I’ll assume your definition of capitalism is synonymous with “neoliberalism”) exist that can exploit the economically vulnerable. Feudalism and slavery are types of economic systems that also lead to perverse stratification and misery for the unfortunate. Such systems were also endorsed by Christianity. The former system apparently seems to be justified using a “divine right basis” (and Western Civilization is indebted to John Locke for providing intellectual arguments to debunk this) and was similar to the “chain of being” medieval cosmology and the latter is justified by some Christians. For example, in one slave catechism, the answer to the question “What did God make you for” the given answer was “To make a crop.” (Although I have not taken a deep analysis of this, Paul apparently is tolerent of slavery in Philemon when he tells slaves should accept the authority of their mundane masters. Correct me if I am wrong.)

I think the antidote to the misery caused (directly or indirectly) is a system of ethics based on utilitarianism. One must thank people such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill for their intellectual work promoting utilitarianism.

Well, regarding the alleged evils of socialism and neoliberalism, it appears that Latin America isn’t buying rhetoric of “economic freedom” that neoliberalism’s advocates use given the recent failed referendum of Evo Morales.

But wait! Not so long ago you were advocating a managerial state that essentially ran the lives of those who were unable, unaided, to meet what sounded like the central criterion of “being able to access healthcare”. A benign establishment of slavery would do those things. I’ll grant that American chattel slavery was a crude instrument whose benignity, or lack thereof, depended on the managerial excellence and human instincts of the slaveowner. But a few regulatory tweaks here and there should be sufficient to fix that.

So why are you so down on slavery? Does the word seem too negative? Maybe “Managerial State” does have a better ring to it when you put the two terms side by side.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would ask the favor, Ribozyme, of your defining “neoliberalism”. While I’m not sure you use the term “neocon”, many do, seemingly assured that they know what it means, and perhaps, if they are not simply different labels for the same thing, the two could be contrasted.

 

[ribozyme]

But wait! Not so long ago you were advocating a managerial state that essentially ran the lives of those who were unable, unaided, to meet what sounded like the central criterion of “being able to access healthcare”. A benign establishment of slavery would do those things. I’ll grant that American chattel slavery was a crude instrument whose benignity, or lack thereof, depended on the managerial excellence and human instincts of the slaveowner. But a few regulatory tweaks here and there should be sufficient to fix that.

So why are you so down on slavery? Does the word seem too negative? Maybe “Managerial State” does have a better ring to it when you put the two terms side by side.

Why would you compare my conception of the managerial state to slavery? You might argue that the managerial state is slavery if you invoke the arguments of Robert Nozick who compared taxation to forced labor. However, my conception of the managerial state is one where lobbyists have less political influence, while people in think tanks have more (they do not have any direct power as their primary job is to research, and to “influence, suggest, insinuate.”) Unlike slave owners who try to maximize their private profits, the managerial state is designed to promote material welfare.

And “managerial state” does not have a nice ring to it. In fact, it was originally a pejorative that was used by Paul Gottfried.

 

[KingAlfred]

The Catechism specifically stands against both collectivist economics and abusive capitalism. It promotes private property, and a just order therein. I take that to mean ‘humane capitalism’. Socialism is NOT the answer.

 

[Leebo]

Brothers and sisters, in response to the radically conservative sentiments which have hampered constructive Christian efforts in the worldwide Catholic Church, especially in the United States, I would like to address the incompatibility the capitalist system presents to our Catholic faith.

Although many professed Catholics are quick to reject socialism as a solution to the extreme inequity of the world, the same Catholics consistently fail to acknowledge just what an affront to Christianity global Capitalism poses. Let us earnestly compare the Capitalist tenant of “survival of the fittest”, with the Christian tenant of “love thy neighbor as yourself”, and it should become immediately apparent that one cannot support Capitalism and be a Christian in good standing. This is evident by observation of the cruel subjugation, exploitation, and de-facto played out by the mechanisms of Global Capitalism in the cases of numerous countries of South East Asia, Latin America, and indeed in the inner-cities of the United States as well as the Ghettos of Europe.

We are charged as Christians to build the Kingdom of Heaven. Perhaps the first step towards this goal should be tearing down the mechanism of Capitalism which have stratified our world among the rich and poor for much of human history. I pray you my brothers and sisters look earnestly upon my words and provide this thread with the incite of your own consciences.

What you call ‘radically conservative sentiments’ is the reason that the kingdom of Heaven can be built within the structure of the Church without having to dismantle anything.

I don’t understand why you all want a government to try and force people to do what you want them to do.

Why do you need to tear anything down? This society allows freedom of religion. What is to stop the Catholic Church from doing exactly as you wish?

Jesus really didn’t spend alot of time trying to convert the govt of Rome into some kind of commune, but he definately expected his followers to live in such a way.

A socialist govt would very likely interfere with Church projects, especially if the Church was bringing in any money.

The only way a commune type system will work is with saintly people. Human nature being as it is, top heavy organizations fail almost all of the time.

So, go to work in your parish and get things started, nothing is stopping you.

 

[Leebo]

What do you mean for much of human history? Other economic systems besides capitalism (I’ll assume your definition of capitalism is synonymous with “neoliberalism”) exist that can exploit the economically vulnerable. Feudalism and slavery are types of economic systems that also lead to perverse stratification and misery for the unfortunate. Such systems were also endorsed by Christianity. The former system apparently seems to be justified using a “divine right basis” (and Western Civilization is indebted to John Locke for providing intellectual arguments to debunk this) and was similar to the “chain of being” medieval cosmology and the latter is justified by some Christians. For example, in one slave catechism, the answer to the question “What did God make you for” the given answer was “To make a crop.” (Although I have not taken a deep analysis of this, Paul apparently is tolerent of slavery in Philemon when he tells slaves should accept the authority of their mundane masters. Correct me if I am wrong.)

I think the antidote to the misery caused (directly or indirectly) is a system of ethics based on utilitarianism. One must thank people such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill for their intellectual work promoting utilitarianism.

Well, regarding the alleged evils of socialism and neoliberalism, it appears that Latin America isn’t buying rhetoric of “economic freedom” that neoliberalism’s advocates use given the recent failed referendum of Evo Morales.

I believe the kind of slavery Paul was talking about was where people basically sold themselves into slavery. They would pay off debt with interest by becoming a slave. The more desperate they became the more interest they would agree to pay. It often became a viscious cycle very much like credit card debt is today.

 

[rwoehmke]

The Catechism specifically stands against both collectivist economics and abusive capitalism. It promotes private property, and a just order therein. I take that to mean ‘humane capitalism’. Socialism is NOT the answer.

I assure you that this is a sensible and just position, Russia practiced collectivist economics and we all know where that led, before unionization and regulation Great Britain practiced what could be called abusive Capitalism; no or little regulation, the laborer merely a cog in the machinery of production. We had some of that kind of abuse here in the states circa 19th-early 20 th century.

 

[Beofuse]

Distributivism is another choice that is more in line with Catholic teaching. I first heard about reading GK Chesterton.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

 

[thomfra]

The Catechism specifically stands against both collectivist economics and abusive capitalism. It promotes private property, and a just order therein. I take that to mean ‘humane capitalism’. Socialism is NOT the answer.

But a social democracy. Canada for example. A better model?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Distributivism is another choice that is more in line with Catholic teaching. I first heard about reading GK Chesterton.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Another good example of an economic model based on Catholic Social Teaching values is the Mondragon Cooperative…

This is a voluntary, non-governmental cooperative organization that developed its economic, business, and management structure according to the tenets of Catholic Social Teaching

source:iisd.org/50comm/commdb/desc/d13.htm

MCC has grown in its forty years of operation to include 160 employee-owned cooperatives, involving 23,000 member owners, with sales grossing US$3 billion in 1991. The main focus of the Association of the Mondragon Cooperatives is the creation of owner-employee jobs to expand the opportunities for people to participate in the relationship economy. Statistics show the Mondragon cooperatives to be twice as profitable as the average corporation in Spain with employee productivity surpassing any other Spanish organisation. It is focused on social success, involvement of the people and industrial democracy.

The MCC views capital as only a means to an end, the goal is for a happy and productive work environment and capital is a tool needed to achieve that. **Ten percent of the annual net profits is donated to charity, **40 percent is retained in the collective internal account. This collective internal account is regarded as the portion of profits that is collectively owned and managed for the common good; if the cooperative ever ceased to exist, this portion would go to charity. The remaining 50 percent is open for use by the owner employees because it can be used as collateral at the bank for a loan at an interest rate only a point or two above the six percent it is earning, yet the cooperative has the use of the capital at the same time.

 

[Steve40]

I thank God for the opportunities that were given to my grandfather and father. My grandfather was a poor man from a poor country and the Capitalist system in this country was a God send.

There is no other country that can compare with our compassion for the poor and our quick movement from lower class to middle and perhaps upper class.

Who can curse those who are Blessed by God. I am thankful to God for His gift of our capitalist system and the work ethic of my grandfather and father.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why would you compare my conception of the managerial state to slavery? You might argue that the managerial state is slavery if you invoke the arguments of Robert Nozick who compared taxation to forced labor. However, my conception of the managerial state is one where lobbyists have less political influence, while people in think tanks have more (they do not have any direct power as their primary job is to research, and to “influence, suggest, insinuate.”) Unlike slave owners who try to maximize their private profits, the managerial state is designed to promote material welfare.

And “managerial state” does not have a nice ring to it. In fact, it was originally a pejorative that was used by Paul Gottfried.

Not to be unkind, but citing all these people is not helpful to a conversation. Don’t use intellectual shorthand. Just say what you think, however derivative it might be.

“influence, suggest and insinuate” do not sound very “managerial” to me. I was under the impression that you would empower the “managerial state” somehow, to regulate the lives of the not-terribly-intelligent. Your IQ cutoff for “non-management” was 80 or so, wasn’t it?

So, would I be correct in believing you would enact a constitutional amendment to ban lobbying? How would you define that to exclude banning “think tank lobbying”? Would you allow all “think tanks”, or just some? How are the think tanks going to “influence, suggest and insinuate” without doing the same things the Chamber of Commerce does? Are they going to write papers and hope someone orders them and reads them?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You know, Ribozyme, I’m not terribly fond of lobbyists myself, “think tankers” included. Might be enough to make Congressmen go on tv in their districts once/year and recite the names of all those who gave them money, organizational support or anything in kind, and what, if any, actions they took that directly or indirectly benefitted those persons or organizations beyond what benefitted all citizens equally.

Not to go churchy on you here, but where I come from that sort of thing is called a “Come to Jesus Meeting”. I would sure enjoy watching those people sweat.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You know, I don’t think anybody here has defined “capitalism” yet. Oh well.

 

[Peregrino]

Perhaps you can help us find capitalism before you ask us to help you in tearing it down.

Please define “capitalism”. Refrain, if you will, from statements like “the system by which the rich rob the poor”. That tells us nothing. Tell us precisely how it works and who is in charge of the system. You can’t tear something down without knowing how it’s built.

Then, if you will, tell us your proposal as to how it gets dismantled.

I’m serious in asking these things. I have seen it said that “capitalism” is, in its most extreme sense, the absence of any system at all. It’s just “what people do on their own” in the economic sphere. Things can be put in place to regulate what people do, to one degree or another, and are. If those regulations roughly fit one pattern, people tend to refer to it as the “rule of law”. Some refer to it as the “rule of the marketplace”. Add more things to it and at some point some people start calling it “socialism”.

Having seen so many definitions that don’t agree, I’m not sure the statement that capitalism is the absence of a system, is incorrect. I’m not persuaded that any of the “isms” have a precise meaning, and perhaps “capitalism” is the least meaningful term of all.

So, tell us precisely what you mean and what you would do about it. .

Great post. I agree at many levels. It seems to me that neither extreme (free market capitalism/communism) has been realized-this often seems to be the most usual defense used by advocates of either. Of course, definitions become critical at this point. As Ridgerunner pointed out, there is a continuum on which some would call a system “capitalism” and others “socialism”. I don’t know that we have really seen the true extremes of either, nor am I sure that we would want to.

I agree with the OP that there seems to be a definitive “collectivist”, “socialist”, “whatever” bent to the New Testament. Not much in the NT seems consistent with the “pursue your self-interest” ethic promoted by advocates of “capitalism”.

“Capitalism” would seem to have us “love ourselves in order to love our neighbors”, letting the “invisible hand” of selfishness works its “magic”. This really doesn’t seem to square with Jesus’ “love your neighbor” admonition, especially given the saying that “there is no greater love than this; to lay down one’s life for his friends”.

Of course, people will start slinging around excuses concerning the problems of communist dictators, “Jesus didn’t mean governent”, etc. at this point, but they never seem to resolve or acknowledge the definitive “socialist” element in the new testament that calls for the individual to “deny himself and take up his cross” in order to follow Jesus. To me, this seems totally contrary to the selfish ethic embraced by the “free market” crowd. It would seem that we have to embrace this element of the NT, not ignore it; failing to do so seems to indicate that Jesus suggested a way of living that is unworkable/undesirable.

 

[ribozyme]

Not to be unkind, but citing all these people is not helpful to a conversation. Don’t use intellectual shorthand. Just say what you think, however derivative it might be.

“influence, suggest and insinuate” do not sound very “managerial” to me. I was under the impression that you would empower the “managerial state” somehow, to regulate the lives of the not-terribly-intelligent. Your IQ cutoff for “non-management” was 80 or so, wasn’t it?

So, would I be correct in believing you would enact a constitutional amendment to ban lobbying? How would you define that to exclude banning “think tank lobbying”? Would you allow all “think tanks”, or just some? How are the think tanks going to “influence, suggest and insinuate” without doing the same things the Chamber of Commerce does? Are they going to write papers and hope someone orders them and reads them?

No explicit management of people will occur in such a state; the best way to describe such management would be “a series of social programs informed by a vague egalitarian spirit.”

 

[gpo1941]

I believe the Church is doing what it should in trying to change the bad in government, no matter what system, by changing the individual. Think about how much less “government” we would need if all people followed the teachings of Jesus.