Is Capitalism the new Pharaoh/Egypt of Exodus?

[CAJD]

There is something very wrong with the analysis of capitalism on this thread. You refer to capitalism as if it exists as a world order that is controlled by some higher authority.

The only higher authority to capitalism is the values of the person engaging in capitalist behavior as well as the natural laws of God.

The beliefs of people like Chesterton are deeply flawed, simply because they talk about capitalism as if it is some sort of government mandated system. They do not understand the nature of the social interaction that is capitalism.

Capitalism is not inherently materialistic. It is simply based on the desires and needs that are God given, and God based: need for food and sustenance, and a natural mandate to work, using our abilities, to cultivate the earth.

Distributionism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are all contrary to God’s law, because they violate freedom. They have no charity, because love requires a free choice of the individual.

Distributionism forces a system that is economically unsustainable and would be forced family level poverty, on the whole world. You simply CAN NOT do much of what we have achieved in the modern world on a distributionist scale. It is impossible to drill for oil and mine coal on a distributionist scale. It is a worthless policy because, like socialism, it is not in keeping with reality.

Socialism denies freedom. Fascism is socialism with the illusion of individual ownership. Both of these violate God’s desire for us to be free. They sacrifice the unique value of the individual for the commune. It should be of no surprise that Marx, the FATHER OF SOCIALISM called on us to Abolish all religion. Faith in God requires freedom. This freedom may call on you to spend an exorbitant amount on your, lets just say, St Peter’s Basilica. Socialists will never understand, because they do not understand the faith, or the world, where Christ told us “the poor will always be with you.” Look at the United States. Poor in Christ’s time would give anything to have the material wealth of even the poorest of America’s poor (except for the children stuck in homes with dead beat parents. A bit of an exception.)

And yet we still have poor. The greatest poverty is poverty of loneliness and poverty of faith. Because of the materialism of Socialism, they would never understand why we freely choose to spend money supporting these human needs. They would never understand why Sceptre publishing house can or should make money selling books about the Saints.

Capitalism allows this, because free markets are very simply — free. Wages are NOT slavery, they are free interactions. You can always quit (don’t be dishonest or evasive – you know you can quit, and have probably done it before) But you can not escape a government that is willing to shoot you to get their money in a socialist state. True charity will always exist in a capitalist state, because it is a calling of the heart. Giving actually feels good. But a socialist state demands support from the voters in order to decide to whom its largesse will flow.

Free market interaction (what is incorrectly referred to as capitalism, as if it is an ideology) takes a human inclination, self preservation, and by the grace of God, directs it to the needs of others. You must provide a service to society to gain greater wealth. Society must become richer for you to become richer. It is TRULY a gift from God.

 

[mpi]

As I have stated in other threads it is inappropriate to exclusively use Rerum Novarum quotes to decide what the best economic system is, from a Catholic perspective. 100 years after Rerum Novarum JPII produced the encyclical Centesimus Annus, which was a 100 year analysis of economic systems and social justice. I consider this document (the Church’s last encyclical on social justce/economic matters) to be the Church’s most glowing endorsement of capitalism. JPII even condemns the welfare state (I assume he is refering to Western Europe based on the context).

Pope Benedict will be issuing an encyclical over the next few months on economic systems and social justice. I look forward to reading it. For most Catholics in the developed world, however, Benedict’s words will not mean a thing. These Catholics are so smart that they know better than the Pope - some even know what Jesus would really want. This viewpoint comes in handy when you want to reject the Catholic Church’s teaching.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

The first two responses are from a reply I got when I posted CADJ’s response over on the distributism forum (you need to join to read). The last one is my own reply. Feel free to join the conversation over there.

There is something very wrong with the analysis of capitalism on this thread. You refer to capitalism as if it exists as a world order that is controlled by some higher authority.

The only higher authority to capitalism is the values of the person engaging in capitalist behavior as well as the natural laws of God.

The beliefs of people like Chesterton are deeply flawed, simply because they talk about capitalism as if it is some sort of government mandated system. They do not understand the nature of the social interaction that is capitalism.

Free market interaction (what is incorrectly referred to as capitalism, as if it is an ideology) takes a human inclination, self preservation, and by the grace of God, directs it to the needs of others. You must provide a service to society to gain greater wealth. Society must become richer for you to become richer. It is TRULY a gift from God.

Response:

This is nonsense. If by “capitalism” the writer means a system of free exchange, absent any privileges or aritificially scarcities enforced by government coercion, it is misleading to refer to it in the present indicative (“capitalism is…” “capitalism does…”).

On the other hand, if he considers the predominant trade and employment practices in the existing economy to be anything like an approximation of “capitalism,” it is in fact false to say that it does not coerce or impose a system from above.

Distributionism forces a system that is economically unsustainable and would be forced family level poverty, on the whole world. You simply CAN NOT do much of what we have achieved in the modern world on a distributionist scale. It is impossible to drill for oil and mine coal on a distributionist scale. It is a worthless policy because, like socialism, it is not in keeping with reality.

Response:

Again, this assumes that the present scale of production and concentration of property are the products of autonomous market processes, and are what would arise spontaneously and naturally absent some coercive mechanism to prevent them. The opposite is true. Much of what distributists desire could be achieved simply by making the government cease to enforce monopolies and artificial scarcities.

It also displays a very archaic and time-bound understanding of technology. The obsession with fossil fuel extraction as paradigmatic of the economy in general indicates the author is probably in a paleotechnic rut, fixated on all the aethetic accidents of the iron and coal age and the Dark Satanic Mills, and unaware of how much electrical power and cybernetics have miniaturized and cheapened the production technology required in many areas of economic life.

You simply CAN produce clothing, food, and furniture more efficiently on a distributist scale. Many manufactured appliances simply CAN be produced more efficiently in a small factory than in a large one. You can also make and distribute music, design software, etc., more efficiently via the home computer and sound studio combined with peer network distribution than by the corporate dinosaurs that currently dominate the market under copyright law.

And if artificial concentration in all those spheres is removed, and people buy most of their stuff from small factories close to where they live, there will be A LOT LESS NEED to extract so much oil and coal in the first place.

Distributionism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are all contrary to God’s law, because they violate freedom. They have no charity, because love requires a free choice of the individual.

Distributism is not socialism. Far from it. It promotes privave ownership, preferably at the family level not at the state level (unless you see the family as the state). It is firmly based on Catholic Social teachings.

 

[o_mlly]

I debated on whether to post this here from my blog, but here it goes:
I was also debating putting a poll up, but I think I will not this time.

The United States is not a pure capitalistic system but a (messy) mixture of socialism and capitalism. Governmental tansfer payments (taking from the rich to provide for the poor) do much to soften the hard edge of capitalism in the macro world. But what about the micro world of capitalism? What is life like where the rubber meets the road?

In Matthew’s gospel, does the call to discipleship today, for the worker, the businessman, the soldier, or the politician lead to an intolerable dichotomy between our lives in the world and our lives as Christians? In the past, I aggressively pursued the world and, at times, became caught up in a mentality that I see now as unhealthy. In the irreligious world of a privatized free enterprise, competition, rather than cooperation, is more often the model for success. Rugged individualism, often seen as a necessity and even a virtue, can cause relationships to become distant, at times, even irrelevant. Our economic system, driven by self-interest and a rudimentary code of conduct tends to instrumentalize people. My affections to be competitive, profitable, productive, efficient and economically rational drove my behaviors. At times, these behaviors conflicted with my spirituality. Without a spiritual affection superior to and in control of my worldly affections, my attitudes, ideas, choices, and relationships were often in discord.

Initially, I do not find in Matthew’s gospel a formula for being a Christian manager in our free enterprise system. I believe the goals of a manager-in-the-world and a Christian disciple are often conflicted. A manager attempts to pursue the self-interests of the small group (company) against the interests of other small groups (competitors, customers or vendors). The free enterprise system calls for the manger to be competitor for his company; Jesus calls the Christian to be a disinterested lover of everybody (Matt. 22:39). If my goal is to be a “breadwinner” for my clan then, in the short-run zero sum game of acquiring and distributing materials, is it not also to make another a “breadloser” for his or her clan?

Competition drives our system of production and distribution. We compete for factors of production, for jobs, for orders from customers and, completing the cycle, we compete to buy these same products in the marketplace. Employees are directly involved in the internal competition with co-workers for their share of the company’s profits, promotions and benefits. Owners promote the competition by demanding profits. No enterprise in our system can sustain itself long without profit. If a “for-profit” company cannot replace its spent capital through profitable operations, it will fail. Owners will remove capital; workers will be fired. How can a person with the responsibility to insure his or her small community survives by maintaining profitability also meet Matthew’s idea of discipleship?

My Pharisees are those who would counsel me to base my identity on belonging to a company, a nation, a church or any other idol which would stand between Jesus, all humanity, and me. When I subdivide my membership into something less than all humanity, I invent the notion of “stranger.” I may now treat this invented stranger, the alien who is no longer familiar, with suspicion, and exclude him or her from my love. In business, my Pharisees are those who preach that the only duty to this stranger—the vendor or the customer—is fairness in exchange. Fairness in exchange, they tell me, requires that I only honor my promises to the extent contract law requires. My Pharisees call me to a higher standard for my clan. As to the stranger, so to my own, my word is my bond, but not much more is required. The duty to the clan—the employee, the co-worker, the manager, the co-citizen, is a negated “golden rule”—do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself and tort law defines these higher obligations. But, I know it is never too difficult not to do things. Barclay, in The Gospel of Matthew, notes that not doing injury to other people is not an especially religious principle; it is, rather, a legal principle. If I cannot compete and be Christian, I must withdraw and I have withdrawn.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is something very wrong with the analysis of capitalism on this thread. You refer to capitalism as if it exists as a world order that is controlled by some higher authority.

The only higher authority to capitalism is the values of the person engaging in capitalist behavior as well as the natural laws of God.

Distributionism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are all contrary to God’s law, because they violate freedom. They have no charity, because love requires a free choice of the individual.

Distributionism forces a system that is economically unsustainable and would be forced family level poverty, on the whole world. You simply CAN NOT do much of what we have achieved in the modern world on a distributionist scale. It is impossible to drill for oil and mine coal on a distributionist scale. It is a worthless policy because, like socialism, it is not in keeping with reality.

I agree with your first proposition, but dissent from the second.

Bared to its essentials, capitalism is nothing but economic activity in the absence of centralized fiat. It’s a “tabula rasa” on which almost any variation can be written, including elements of what we refer to as “socialism”. It can run amok, as the free flow of traffic can run amok in the absence of speed limits and stop signs, or it can be unreasonably stifled, as traffic would be on an interstate with a 25 mph speed limit and arbitrary stop signs every second mile.

“Distributism” has, in my opinion, a bad name among some because it is identified with a sort of “back to the land” primitiveness or small group collectivism. But if one reads the Social Encyclicals, one sees that while Pope Leo XIII encouraged land ownership, he did it within the context of his time, in which small farms worked, a lot of land was lying fallow in the hands of absentee landlords, and most people engaged in agriculture anyway.

But what Distributism really, at its core, espouses, are conditions which foster the ready ACQUISITION of productive assets by individuals and families. It does not mean we would undertake to manufacture cars in our back yards. To be effective in the context of our world, it would more likely be represented, for perhaps most, by being able to acquire stock in, e.g., O’Reilley Automotive. For others, indeed, it might really mean a viable farm or a bakery. (The key word being “viable”) One of the greatest barriers to that is the level of taxation the government imposes, which, along with excessive consumerism, discourages the acquisition of productive individual and family assets.

JPII acknowledged, in effect, that no one had truly come up with a proper “modernization” of the concept when he said that Pope Leo’s land-oriented suggestion would need to be updated in a heavily industrialized and technologically complex world, and would need to take other forms. But he still opposed “run amok” capitalism (which in this day more and more means something more like Peronism; the alliance of big business and big government) just as he opposed true socialism.

 

[uther]

Socialism is not responsable for any genocides or mass murders. People are responsible for them. The socialism model works, it works rather well. Its a fair and honost system that would benifit all those involved. The only problem with the system is when you introduce and uncontolable variable (people) then things start to go wrong the system starts to become corrupted. It then gives them the power to persue their own agendas.

I love it. Socialism is great without people in it. Sorry Squishy. I don’t mean to mock but shouldn’t we as Catholics be thinking first about the people, and then think about a “system” to fit them into? Or maybe, no system at all? Just a government that keeps away invaders, and enforces the natural law between people, and leaves the rest up to the people themselves?

But wait, wasn’t that the idea of the founders of the United States? Isn’t that what those far right nut-cases like Ron Paul keep telling us, that we should go back to the founders and live by the Constitution as it was originally set up?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What a concept!

 

[CAJD]

I agree with your first proposition, but dissent from the second.

Bared to its essentials, capitalism is nothing but economic activity in the absence of centralized fiat. It’s a “tabula rasa” on which almost any variation can be written, including elements of what we refer to as “socialism”. It can run amok, as the free flow of traffic can run amok in the absence of speed limits and stop signs, or it can be unreasonably stifled, as traffic would be on an interstate with a 25 mph speed limit and arbitrary stop signs every second mile.

Unfortunately capitalism is not a “tabula rasa.” It has a real definition that people simply choose to ignore. People blame capitalism (but what is really simply freedom) for government’s failures. There is nothing that suggests intrinsically that government should have a large say in business of individuals, and frankly this whole point of our Republican form of government was so that exactly this would not happen. But this is exactly the opposite of free unhindered enterprize.

Your example about capitalism “running amok” is really deeply in error, because it assumes a complete and total lack of reason among humans. We’re not monkeys, or worse, piranhas. Even on highways, there is a magical amount of order that we impose on ourselves, even with no larger authority present, simply because we know other cars are there. Have you ever noticed that people basically set their own speed limit, practically ignoring the government set limit, because it is impracticable?

Our last Holy Father’s conclusion about “capitalism running amok” is something that I rather strenuously disagree with, because evidence shows, and the Bible supports (as well as the tradition of Catholic work ethic) that not only are we called to work, but that markets are a natural state of being. We all greatly benefit from their existence. Frankly, all of the efforts to oppose free markets are wrong for the reasons I stated: they do not respect freedom. And I’m not talking about the new age, “I can do what I want” kind of freedom. They don’t have enough respect for our Lord’s greatest creation, Mankind, to realize that he has a basic, though flawed, inclination toward good.

This lack of regard for man and his material and spiritual freedom, is why every major economic system that man has tried to impose on other men, has had hostility to religion, and usually Catholicism in particular. Because our dedication to freedom would oppose their very premise, that humans, outside of general public safety, need to be constantly ordered in their economic activities in order to provide for the public.

Once people return to one of the foundational principles of the human constitution, free will, they will see why all of these imposed systems are contradictory to our calling in the faith.

 

[CAJD]

Distributism is not socialism. Far from it. It promotes privave ownership, preferably at the family level not at the state level (unless you see the family as the state). It is firmly based on Catholic Social teachings.

There was a bunch to quote frankly, and it would have been too long. And not all of it was you, but, here we go:

Capitalism is not an economic system imposed from above (unless by above you mean by the nature God gave us) if you seriously don’t believe me, just watch children at the lunch table at school, at a VERY young age, learn spontaneously to trade food that they want less, for food that they want more. They barter constantly, and in a rather sophisticated manner, and a market develops, and is maintained. The only real aberrations of the freedom of people comes when some stick in the mud teacher closes the market by force, or imposes controls.

For the gentleman who concluded many WONDERFUL things about distributionism’s incredible market efficiencies, I am simply curious about how he explains Wal-Mart, how he gets around the economy of scale questions (or whether he simply disregards all analysis of classical economics), or whether he somehow disregards the massive distribution of capital and productive capability that frankly only exists because of capitalism.

He notes things about clothing and music production that would NEVER exist if it were not for a market for these things. Capitalism, if anything has great evidence that it actually distributes capital and productive capability to a greater and greater population over time. If you don’t believe that, I would suggest you go try to convince a home gardener with a drip irrigation system on a digital timer who just roto-tilled his garden with a gas powered tiller.

Capitalism, and the simultaneous freedom and right to exist of both large and small business, with as little government interference as possible from each, has the lowest overall costs and the greatest growth in all the empirical evidence I’ve ever seen.

I’m still looking for the hard numbers from this fairy tale of “distributionism.” Distributionism isn’t socialism? If it’s done by force, it sure is.

 

[CAJD]

And one more thing,

All of these attempts to manage economics and the material efforts of man for him, take away this one important area where he can detach himself from the material. They make charity illegitimate because he is not doing it of his free will. Worse, it makes him a thief, because most of these people are calling for a crushing of corporations which they see as the villains of this capitalism run amok.

 

[uther]

Whenever you see capitalism “run amok”, you will find that government has interfered in the market to give privilege to someone or some group or class.

The classic case is the recent housing market bubble and subsequent market crash. If the governement had been doing its job in enforcing the moral law, in this case against fraud through lack of disclosure and fraudulant claims made to investors as well as fraudulent asset structures to back borrowing and the selling of spin-off investments, and kept its social engineering out of the housing market there would have been no bubble, and no bank failures.

Benedict XVI has spoken against “market determinism”, which allows the market itself to dictate morality. That is not what is meant by free markets, at least in the American context of the founding. Moral determinations are a priori, based on the natural law. For Catholics, the economic casualties of errors or human weakness in one form or another are the object of our charity, the command of Christ.

Those who commit fraud, or intimidation within the market place are the object of the full weight of that a priori law which is to be enforced by the government. But it is not the job of government to try to make the market achieve its goals, regardless of how noble they seem to be, nor to create rights for any group at the expense of another.

It is quite possible that in a free market system, any government, at the behest of the people could be involved in charity as well. It is usually less efficient, but if it is the will of the people, there is no constitutional issue. It is only when that charity is changed into an entitlement, a right, that socialism begins, wherein one person has a right to the fruit of another’s labor. That is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Unfortunately capitalism is not a “tabula rasa.” It has a real definition that people simply choose to ignore. People blame capitalism (but what is really simply freedom)

Your example about capitalism “running amok” is really deeply in error, because it assumes a complete and total lack of reason among humans.

I do not disagree with your proposition that capitalism is, plainly put, economic freedom. That any kind of human freedom can be abused and abusive is too obvious to require further explication. For that reason, we have laws that provide sanctions for exercises of one’s intrinsic freedom that are perceived as causing harm.

Abuse of freedom is not confined to the personal or the physical. One can abuse freedom in economic ways as well, and history gives plenty of examples of that. Reason alone, as, again, history teaches, does not necessarily prevent actions that are harmful to others. One could cite George Soros’ gleeful statement that, in putting short sale pressure on the Pound, he caused misery in England, and knew that before he did it. But, he said, had he taken human consequences into account, it would have reduced his profits, so he considered the misery of others as “acceptable” to him.

So the question, when it comes to capitalism, is not whether economic freedom should be limited, but in what ways it should be limited or, for that matter, enhanced.

 

[JimG]

I love it. Socialism is great without people in it. Sorry Squishy. I don’t mean to mock but shouldn’t we as Catholics be thinking first about the people, and then think about a “system” to fit them into? Or maybe, no system at all? Just a government that keeps away invaders, and enforces the natural law between people, and leaves the rest up to the people themselves?

But wait, wasn’t that the idea of the founders of the United States? Isn’t that what those far right nut-cases like Ron Paul keep telling us, that we should go back to the founders and live by the Constitution as it was originally set up?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What a concept!

Yes, socialism runs into problems wherever and whenver it is led by people. Socialist type systems such as communism and facism have led to the greatest death tolls in history. It is rather ironic that the U.S. finds itself turning more and more towards socialist types of governing, given its 20th century death tolls provided for us by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il, among others.

Are we so eager to adopt that which has proven to be so deadly?

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Well, I see someone has joined the group where my response came from. Should get interesting over there.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Well, I see someone has joined the group where my response came from. Should get interesting over there.

Well, I was right. It should heat up over there. Cannot wait until the more knowledgeable people sign on over there.

Too bad yahoo groups do not have an “Ignore” feature like they have here. npatrol:

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Well, I was right. It should heat up over there. Cannot wait until the more knowledgeable people sign on over there.

Too bad yahoo groups do not have an “Ignore” feature like they have here. npatrol:

All I can say is :hypno:

 

[CAJD]

Thanks Uther, for helping me let people know the compatibility of free market values with Catholic teaching. Although you are wrong about the question of constitutionality: on the federal level, there is little to nothing we are allowed to do as far as transfers of wealth, direct grants and economic ordering is concerned, if we really want to follow the constitution.

Thankfully enough, this still allows people to do significant amount of governing on the state level, where people (and families!) get more say.

I think I am going to stop even bothering with the distributists (or whatever they prefer to be called). I’ve tired quickly of their selective representation of economic history, blaming free markets for the crashes caused by government intervention, and ignoring the fact that distributive “co-ops” bare incredible similarity to corporations. The fact that the Madrogon Cooperative Corporation gets more capitalistic by the year since, you know, they actually have to deliver good products at decent costs to serve mankind, is just a funny bonus.

If people ever come to understand that true free markets have distribution of capital as well as concentrations of capital, and that different combinations of both are efficient in different ways and times, they will stop trying to get governments to constantly control markets by force, and let people be free instead of regimented. Then maybe just maybe, we’ll concentrate on teaching people the faith, so they can be charitable with their profits and talents, instead of trying to take the pain, suffering (how holy!) and work out of charity by engineering society.

Craig Dennis

 

[o_mlly]

There is something very wrong with the analysis of capitalism on this thread. You refer to capitalism as if it exists as a world order that is controlled by some higher authority.

The only higher authority to capitalism is the values of the person engaging in capitalist behavior as well as the natural laws of God…

The authority that drives capitalism is personal greed. If all men were angels, any system of economic organizaton would work. However, the reality is we are all sinners. Many still have a logical problem with the idea that a personal vice practiced widely somehow takes on the air of a public virtue.

Rregulated captialism, I believe, is still the best flawed system we have going. But let us recognize it is imperfect. Since there is no perfect system this side of the Parousia, I agree with St. Augustine: do not revolve the system you find yourself in – things can get worse. Rather evolve the present system focusing on increasing what is good and removing what is evil in as much as we are given the grace to do so.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[peregrinus_WA]

One parting shot before I may ask for this thread to close (I have yet to decide on whether to do so)

We who subscribe to Distributism as a viable economic model get bombarded from both sides. Socialists (especially the Marxist, Fascist, Nazi types) accuse us of Capitalism while the Capitalists (especially the Global Capitalists) accuse of of being Socialists (especially of being Communists).

Now that we really have an amalgamation of Socialism and Capitalism due to their increasing incestuous relationship, it is getting worse. Furthermore, this incestuous relationship, along with Relativism, Materialism, and Liberalism are what is dragging society down and threatening to cause the implosion of civilization from their perversions.

I am one who sees the way of saving society from these plagues in the Catholic movements of the past. I have opened a thread up on this here:
Is the Solution to Today’s Ills in the Movements of the Past?
I will leave this thread open a little longer to see what happens.