Religio Philologi II: Greed
A consideration of these Lenten readings of St. Paul's epistles should prevent any sensible person from the delusion—so common among conservatives today—that one can reconcile the teachings of Christ with the teachings of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.
From 1 Thessalonians 4:
Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.
From Ephesians 5:
Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints . . .
In these traditional readings for the second and third Sundays in Lent, St. Paul warns against submitting to "covetousness" and against defrauding one's brother. In other similar passages, variously translated, we are told to beware of avarice or greed. Calvin interprets "covetousness" (the Vulgate's avaritia) as "nothing more than an immoderate desire of gain," while on 1 Thessalonians 4, he comments: "Paul teaches that this also is a department of holiness—that we conduct ourselves righteously and harmlessly towards our neighbors. The former verb refers to violent oppressions—where the man that has more power emboldens himself to inflict injury."
It is tempting to think that Calvin was seeking to justify Max Weber's famous linking of capitalism and the Protestant ethic by defining covetousness as only an "immoderate" desire for wealth or as an instance of "violent oppression," thus leaving the door open to the normal getting and spending which men of the past five centuries have elevated to one of the highest virtues. However, neither Catholic nor Anglican translations into English are much different. Even a Latin word like avaritia typically (though not always) carries with it the inherent moral disapprobation conveyed by English words like "greed" and "avarice." Surely the Greeks of Thessalonike and Ephesus already knew that it was wrong to be greedy or immoderately eager for wealth.
Paul's original Greek is a bit more precise than his translators have been. In Ephesians the word is pleonexia, while in I Thessalonians 6 we have the related verb form pleonktein. The Greek echein is the simplest verb meaning "to have," while pleon means more. So pleonektein means having or getting more and pleonexia a condition or process of getting or trying to get more. The verb, which is not necessarily pejorative, thus can be used to mean "to have more than others" or "to claim more than one is due." A person who is a pleonektes, then, claims more than he has or more than he is due, and the derived noun pleonexia refers to the character of the pleonektes or the process by which he gets more and more.
There is a range of meanings and implications, not all of which are obviously moral faults. Medical writers use pleonexia to mean surfeit or excess, e.g. of liquid or heat, while Xenophon applies it to the superior extent of the Spartan empire. The comic poet Menander says that pleonexia is an evil, but only because those who plot to gain their neighbor's goods fail in their attempt.
Though a moralist will generally condemn the desire for more, he may not actually restrict this desire to what we would regard as immoderate. When Stoics or Neoplatonists or Christians stigmatize pleonexia, it is because the pleonektes wants more than he needs, in other words, more than bare necessities. The pleonektes' desire leads him into injustice, because he desires what he does not have, and into luxury, because he acquires material things he does not need and which cloud his mind and will. Thus, Plutarch, who couples the word with with strife and contention and cruelty, and Demosthenes, who pairs it with wantonness, both use pleonexia in a negative sense.
Aristotle disapproves of economic pleonexia, because while wealth is a natural necessity, a man seeking higher things should not wallow in the possession of more and more material wealth, especially in the form of money, which is artificial.
To sum up this disorganized and lengthy account, the Greek cluster of words translated as greedy, avaricious, and covetous are objective terms, not in essence terms of disapproval except in the writings of moralists who think the pursuit of wealth is a base occupation for man. It is, then, misleading to speak of an "immoderate" desire for wealth, since Bill Gates, after making his first billion, would not have thought it immoral to continue wasting his time on getting a second billion.
It is especially wrong for a Christian to pursue wealth at the expense of the brethren: "That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter." This is a gross over-translation. To take the second part, Paul says merely to make a profit (pleonektein, again) off his brother and says nothing about fraud. Now common sense tells us Paul did not mean that Peter should not make an honest profit by selling Paul fish or Paul by selling Peter a tent. Peter and Paul have themselves to feed and, if they were not apostles, might have hungry mouths to feed. Indeed, St. Paul makes it clear he does want working people to subsidize the idle—even if the idle claim to be or are preachers or prophets. He enjoins the Thessalonians, "that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you. That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing."
St. Paul is telling us to work hard and make an honest living for ourselves and our families, lest we burden our brothers or become a matter of scandal to the non-believers. The stipulation is that the profit-taking must be constrained within limits. There is an extensive ancient moral literature discussing the moral limits on profit-seeking. Paul makes the situation a bit clearer in the first phrase, "go beyond." Here the Greek is hyperbainein, to walk beyond, overstep, outdo or transgress. A good English word might be "get the better of." In other words, we are not to make a good business deal that takes advantage of a brother's weak position. Indeed, the word translated "matter" (pragma) is typically used of business deals.
If we read St. Paul in the light of the Greek language and its higher moral traditions, we can see how correct St. Thomas is, in describing sin as a disorder that turns us from higher and divine things to lower temporal things. This is not simply an immoderate desire for wealth, unless we consider immoderate anything that distracts us from our obedience to the two great commandments, love of God and love of our neighbor. Dickens, for a change, gets at least the human part right. When Scrooge objects his late partner's preaching, "But you were always a good man of business, Jacob." The Ghost cried out:
Business! Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!
To understand the borderline between thrift and prudence, on the one hand, and the avarice that hardens our hearts to God and our brothers, you should consult your priest or minister. All I can do is to draw your attention to the severe judgment that Paul is passing on people who would be regarded as upright businessmen and pillars of the community. A consideration of these passages should prevent any sensible person from the delusion—so common among conservatives today—that one can reconcile the teachings of Christ with the teachings of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. Lord Acton, a brighter and better read man than most of us, failed utterly in the attempt. He knows better now.
Entries(RSS)
A well though out piece. However, where in your mind does one draw the line? Are the anti-market socialists closer to being more correct than Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard? Should the Catholics among us hope for the end of all usury like members of the SSPX do? Thankfully, there does not seem to be an official 'Catholic' position on the free market, at least from the perspective of the Holy See. I must admit though, part of me has been filled with guilt when you have said similar things in the past.
In brief: Socialism is a perverse and even more pernicious error that arose in reaction to the errors of liberalism. Insofar as classical liberals/libertarians advocate free markets and moral freedom, they are wholesome; to the extent they put economic goods above moral and spiritual goods, they are a problem. Free markets (there is no such thing as a "free market" in the abstract) exist to enable men to satisfy their natural necessities, which are for most of us, who are not monks, an indispensable prerequisite for leading a good life. Socialism robs us of the fruits of our labors and of our everyday liberties. Usury, defined as an unjust profit on loaned money--in other words something akin to loan-sharking--is evil and should be prohibited even when it is the interest rate the market will bear. My old friend Rothbard was quite wrong about this and misinterpreted Thomas. But times and circumstances change. If a man cannot realize a reasonable rate of return on a loan, he will not loan the money and either sit on it or buy goods or invest in a business of his own. I am not an economist, but one should be able to calculate a rough range that would take into consideration both opportunity cost and inflation. This would probably be something in the range of what you can get from CD's and money markets. 18-24% plus penalties, late fees etc is not just and if the credit card companies were to say we cannot lend for less, fine, because they have done wicked things in enticing weak and stupid people (myself included) into running up debts buying things they do not need and cannot afford. The libertarian answer--that each of us decides for himself what he is willing to pay according to his subjective valuation--would work in a world of rational people not subjected to mass-media propaganda. But how many economically astute libertarians have been able to avoid overeating, overdrinking, drug use, adultery, and consumerism? Perhaps you know these paragons, but I do not. Rothbard was a good man but we cannot use his example as a model for most of his followers,, who are living refutation of his idealistic errors about human nature.
"...we are not to make a good business deal that takes advantage of a brother’s weak position."
What is there specifically in the teaching of Milton Friedman or Adam Smith that you think incompatible with this principle?
There is the concern, voiced in the first post, of "just how much is enough--where does one draw the line?"
I venture to say this is an internal judgment of conscience and intentions have to be factored in: just what is one planning to do with the wealth? The means must be adequate to the goal. Sometimes lots of honest profits flow from simply doing very well at giving others what they want, and beginning to do so from a desire to makes their lives easier or better in some way.
We are taught in this society that getting gain is good just as an end in itself, and this is a real problem, since any sane person knows money is a means. Failing to do so makes people crazy and makes them do crazy things--the madness of Mr. Madoff is our most recent example.
But the question for the common man still nags: Just how much is enough?
What I submit is, as difficult as this question is to answer (and difficult as it is to do once a satisfactory answer is given) instability, driven by inflation and other things, make it almost impossible to answer in concrete terms. We see sports figures and others make what we consider to be large sums that should keep them well for a lifetime, only to find 20 years later the worth of that sum to be dwarfed and the once wealthy figure no nearly so wealthy––not because he was foolish, but because of changes in society and economics beyond his control.
So we ask ourselves, "how much will I need to care for my family in 10 or 15 years?" "How much should I save now to meet the demand then, and how much profit should I strive for now?" A young family has escalating needs as children grow; compound that with economic and social instability and the difficulty of the problem becomes clear.
Inflation and instability strike fear into the common man's heart and almost force him to obsess over money--not for greed's sake, but for safety's sake.
My wife and I both work. We don't take vacations, we don't own fancy things, we drive cars that are old, we own a modest home, barely adequate to live in and serve as the place of my business––yet, we can barely keep our heads above water. We find the greatest pillager of the little we can gather is not the guy running the local restaurant or managing the super market, but the government itself.
Today we are asked to reflect on our greed and make a serious stab at the answer to "how much is enough"---and when we do we find it almost impossible to answer, mainly because no one in government, most especially our abstraction loving recently elected feckless leaders, is seeking the self restraint such an answer would impose in their own lives.
If Adam Smith were around I'd bet he'd be scandalized at the greed of our leaders, he would name it as such and call it an evil.
Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds tells us a good deal of what we need to know about the current crisis. People incite one another to greed and folly, and the contagion spreads until the inevitable débacle.
There are two separate questions here, the personal question of how to conduct the economics of one's own household in a world of consumerist excess and Ponzic folly, and how society should be ordered to avoid such excess as well as other evils such as famine, mass unemployment, and corruption?
As to the former, conscience, prayer, and one's spiritual parent are better guides than comboxes.
As to the latter, Hayek's insight that government is incapable of regulating a complex economy without tending toward tyranny and incompetence remains persuasive. The jamokes and gibbones who run massive "private" economic institutions are often no better managers than the political class. An AIG is bigger than most countries and no easier to run. In our pride, we have tried to erect financial ziggurats we can neither comprehend nor complete.
Big mistake.
"The jamokes and gibbones who run massive “private” economic institutions are often no better managers than the political class. An AIG is bigger than most countries and no easier to run. In our pride, we have tried to erect financial ziggurats we can neither comprehend nor complete."
Right. We hear the talking heads drone on and on about such and such being "too big to fail." But it never seems to be on their radar sceen that it is possible for an entity to become "too big to succeed"––whether than entity be selling insurance, as AIG does, or propaganda, as Abeomia does.
Regarding scripture, I wonder how Jesus' exhortation "give unto men and they will give unto you, pressed down, shaking over will they give unto you." ––I wonder how that squares with Smith and Hayek and Friedman?
Without a special arrangement with government - an edict in the form of an executive order, a legislative statute, a judicial decree, or a popular "democracy" referendum - banks, be they the Fed or some local entity, could not have done the fractional reserve banking of yesteryear or the fiat/counterfeit banking of today. Both would have been unlawful under any common-sense application of common law and immoral under the application of Scripture. In no other realm of life would we tolerate the issuing of a piece of paper - a bank note - as having a certain value when in fact it had less than that value or no value at all. That is known as theft among common folks with common sense. Now, we well may get outwitted by a snake-oil salesman, but fractional reserve banking and fiat banking are obviously frauds.
I have begun to discipline myself with the words of one of the Southern Agrarians as he articulated the plight of a forty-acre farm and capitalization. I should strive to be so productive, optimally using work, land, and planting, to havehold seed for next year's planting, food for this year's needs and a portion to turn to cash for needs. When it comes to capitalization, if it is absolutely necessary, it should come from money set aside therefor. If it comes rather from my savings, I am borrowing from myself and am depleting my future. If my capitalization comes from investors, I am loosing control of my farm and placing an extra burden of increased efficiency on myself in order to meet the demands of my investors. If my capitalization comes from the bank in the form of a loan, I am no longer working for myself, must again increase efficiency on myself and run the risk of losing the farm.
My old pastor, Moses Eli Mercer, told me to first tithe to God, then give offerings to those in need in His name, then save for my family unto God, then pay for that which is absolutely essential for the survival of my family and finally see to it that some was spent in amusement and good times, the ultimate expression of a thrifty man. I have not always heeded that advice; however, I have returned to it and am beginning to find delight in it.
"I have begun to discipline myself..."
These are wonderful values and they worked well...before fiat money, before the escalating income tax, crazed government spending, arbitrary government laws, unrealistic interest rates, and inflation gone wild, all increased by government opportunists upon the occasion of every crisis, not to mention the astronomical costs due to the social instability and chaos caused by easy divorce, drugs, increase of crime, the collapse of the family, the rise of "The Great Society,"etc.
Now, in order for a man who has a family to follow such a plan as you suggest he has to make what would be considered an enormous amount of money as estimated by generations of the past. I make three, maybe four times more than my father and live modestly. He died with money in the bank and owning his own home. I dare say those are goals I won't reach. Not because he was wiser and more frugal, but because he wasn't yet overrun by the escalating expenses for health care, insurance, taxes, taxes, taxes.
Nowadays, to reach your criteria and still meet the external demands of society/government I'd have to live alone in a second-hand double-wide in eastern Oklahoma, on land I'm renting from a rancher, shoot half of what I eat, grow the other half and make 150 K a year.
If I'm lying I'm dying.
Good work Dr. Flemming. It is indeed a good topic. The question "How much do we really need?" seems to be the essence of most of the comments. I would suggest that this ideal has become so skewed that most of us no longer understand what we really need. If the writers of the Gospels could see us now, I am pretty sure they would say we are (for the most part) all living better than King David himself! Very good food for thought Dr. Flemming. To help us understand scripture better could you suggest what you consider to be the best translation of the Bible into English?
@#8 I agree with that asessment of Mr. Peters' post. Applying such a discipline to any 40 acre farm today would require first that the farm be owned outright and that an inexhaustible supply of fiat money be available to satisfy the ever increasing demands placed upon landowners by local, state and federal tax and regulatory authorities. This is why my 46 acres is mostly covered in 25+ year old voluntary growth scrub timber and I have no plans to clear any of it.
In short, none of us are allowed to conduct our business in such a way that the stated ideal could even be aspired to, let alone achieved. I can agree with Mr. Peters' view of fractional reserve banking and of federally enforced cartelization, but I can't see any way to use my land as he describes.
I don't agree that it is impossible in today's society to live a modest but good life on limited income. Neither the government nor society forces anyone to live in vast houses, own more cars than there are drivers in the family, take expensive vacations and always own the latest in electronic toys - and do it all on "credit" (debt). But there are millions who live this way; they are seduced, not forced and are slaves not so much of the government or the banks as of their own vices - as St. Augustine pointed out.
On the other hand, there are millions who live modestly and frugally, contribute much to charity, and have manageable debt or none at all. Although I have a long way to go in achieving even minimum standards of Christian stewardship, I'm closer now than when I had much more money (not to mention much more debt) and am happier for it.
In this financial meltdown, I think God has chosen the most merciful method of bringing Americans to their knees and starting to remove the US footprint (make that bootprint) from the rest of the world. Ordinary Americans can take this opportunity of grace even if our rulers do not. And many thanks to Dr. Fleming for this very thoughtful essay.
Part of the problem in this discussion is that it focuses on "money". The original article, except for Aristotle, just mentioned "more". In focusing on "money", we focus on something that is constantly changing, in fact decreasing in value. A dollar today is worth (buying ability) the same as ~2 cents was in 1900. And not only is it decreasing in value, perhaps exponentially under Bush/Clinton/Greenspan/Bernanke and now Obama/Bernanke, it goes to bankers first and works its way down to the people; the bankers buy at today's price and the rest of it buy at the reigning price when we get it, when it is much less valuable. This has been the case since the Federal Reserve was formed. Previously, money for bank lending came out of everyone's savings which was a natural result of modest annual wealth creation/distribution. Unless a base year is selected, every discussion of money degenerates into an apples/oranges argument. And please don't mention the CPI and its equivalents which have been under continuous "hedonic" and other adjustments since the '50s to try to cover up what the government bureaucrats have been doing to our money.
"If the writers of the Gospels could see us now, I am pretty sure they would say we are (for the most part) all living better than King David himself!"
In some ways we're not coming close to King David's quality of life, but in other ways we are not only living better than King David, we're living better than Queen Victoria. But we live in the common way of our day, just as people of our means and status did then. Comparing then to now is truly apples to oranges.
So, even if we are living better than David, is that now an argument to go back to the stone age? Are we going to convert and become Amish or Shakers?
We ask, "How much is enough?"––and important question. But equally as important is "How little in adequate to live a truly human life?" How little that will be is a question for debate, but I think it's fairly certain that it's probably going to be more than living in a cave and eating tree bark for your three squares.
"I don’t agree that it is impossible in today’s society to live a modest but good life on limited income."
I submit this is true––as long as you choose to live like a monk. But as soon as you have a family and children your financial responsibilities increase exponentially––just to perform your Christian duty of caring for those God has given to be in your charge. Have three, four or five children (because you obey the Churches' teaching on contraception), and see how much EACH YEAR it costs you to send them to Catholic schools, all the while getting no break from the government on taxes because you're not burdening the public school system. Ever try to take a family of 5 out for a special night at even a modestly priced restaurant? Ever go to a ball game with yourself and three kids and look at the cost? It AMAZING how much the simplest things cost–––things poor and low income people could afford as amusements in past generations are unthinkable for the vast majority of what we laughingly call "middle income" families today. What middle income guy with a family can afford to take his kids to several baseball games a year? You just can't do it––even if you're in the nose-bleed seats.
Is anyone writing out there young enough to have responsibility for any one other than themselves? If not, you don't know what you're talking about.
It seems to me that the following are the sins involved (and they are a bit distinct):
(1) Earning wealth in an unjust way;
(2) Putting too much focus on earning material things;
(3) Spending money on things you don't need or sinful things.
The first one is obvious.
The second has to do with devoting your time and energy to the right things - it is best addressed by the call to "Store up one's treasure in heaven" or the parable about the two men who invested the coin given to them by the landlord as opposed to burying it. Even if one is middle class, if one spends all one time worried about money, instead of spending one's time doing God's will, it is a sin even if one is not earning an immoderate amount of wealth by today's standards.
The last one has to do with spending. If I have eight children and spend $100,000 sending them all to a local religious school that is a lot different than if I am single and spend $100,000 at bars and restaurants. The money is not the issue - the wastefulness of my consumption is the sin.
I think keeping all these questions before us is good - sometimes it makes us feel guilty - but it is OK to feel guilty before God because we are guilty before God and it is better to feel guilty now if it makes us think about how we will give our account of ourselves on the day of judgment; we just shouldn't feel guilty before man and therefore let men's will control us in response to that guilt rather than God's, I think.
So, some very rich people may not be committing any of these sins. For example, a rich person may have not unjustly coveted wealth, but may have simply been in a corporate or other position that earned large returns from success. If they spend prudently and give away the excess, and do not let their money cause them to lord over others or leave the wife of their youth, they may be just. Abraham is the classic example of this type of figure.
That said, wealth is temptation, so how many Abrahams are there in the upper echelons of society?
In any case, there is also always the question of society's laws versus what is right. Some things that are legal are also sinful. So, if we take Friedman or Smith's economic principles, let them overtake biblical principles in our mind, and apply them exclusively in daily life that may be a problem. But, mostly, they were suggesting ways to conduct society, so something could be good for society without being good for the individual if the individual is too devoted to it. Whether what they suggested for society is good is a different matter.
Hence, the debate about property. Private property can be a good basis for a free society, but private property acquisition is not by definition an individual virtue and, if attended with time and mental energy beyond basic provisions for ourselves and our families, is a thorn that will hinder our ability to bear fruit as we are required to do to the best of our ability. So, I think it is good to avoid confusing societal systems and laws with individual morality since they overlap some but not completely, especially in economics.
As for translations, I only read the English Bible, that is, the Authorized or King James Version, which is a classic of our literature. Catholics made a big mistake in not simply editing the AV to produce a Catholic equivalent. No Catholic translation is remotely as well written, and the Douay Rheims, while not as beautiful, is almost as archaic. I know most modern versions claim to be more accurate, but every translation is an interpretation, even the Vulgate, which is not without problems. If you want to study the NT Scriptures seriously, there is no alternative but to learn Greek and learn it well. Otherwise, one must simply accept traditional authority. This holds true for the preachers, too, very few of them (less than 1% I estimate) are competent to read even the simplest parts of the NT with independent judgment. The clergy, for the most part, are a disgrace to their profession. To me it is a bizarre and frightening thought, that unlettered men and women sit around the fireside reading errors into the Scriptures because they think they have a right to an opinion.
Before a man presumes to tell us how much it takes to lead a good life today, he should explain what he thinks the good life is. Adjusted for inflation, I earn two or three times what I made some decades ago, but I cannot say I am leading a better life. I do have the ability to travel a great deal, but living where I live I now feel compelled to travel, which I did not 25 years ago. Let us have less hysteria and more reflection.
"C" is right to distinguish the three moral questions, though in practice it is not easy to avoid confusing 2 and 3. I think a simpler way of dividing up the question would be into 1) the way we get and 2) the way we spend. And yes, both C and Lee rightly point out that money per se is not the question.
Where "C" goes astray is in trying to separate the moral and political questions. Smith was above all a moralist, and, as Dr. Johnson understood, his morality was pernicious. I cannot think of many worse serious books on ethics than the The Theory of Moral Sentiments. I have read too little of Friedman to make a judgment, but in interviews and on his TV program it seemed to me he was always passing moral judgments on the superiority of capitalism as a way of life. Whatever merits there may be in distinguishing between private morality and social systems in theory quickly disappears when we come to brass tacks.
Socialism is an evil system, if only because it deprives us of a large part of our moral freedom. Where governments spend 40-50% of our income on their favored clients, we have much less room for charity. On the other hand, government's regulation of business is rarely productive. While it is all too true that we should not empower governments to compel us to spend or earn our money virtuously, a Christian people should expect its rulers to pay some attention to Christian morality. Since Americans are not a Christian people, and since are government is anti-Christian--not merely indifferent--that point is moot. Thus it is ourselves whom we must seek to correct and not the Treasury Secretary.
Mr. Grumpy Old Man @#5:
In our pride, we have tried to erect financial ziggurats we can neither comprehend nor complete.
Well said, sir. And the toppling of these proud towers sunders us in more than speech.
My Chesterton reading group is filled with distributists, like myself. Often the question comes up of Chesterton and Belloc's animus towards the brand of capitalism (and capitalism as a general system) they witnessed in England and the strong advocacy of capitalism by Catholics like Thomas Woods in our day.
Since all these souls are Catholics, and devoutly so, could they be thinking about the same thing and looking at the same object? Woods recently wrote The Church and the Market; a Catholic defense of the Free Market–––a prize winning book, for what it's worth.
I have not read it, but hope to soon. I wonder if anyone knows it and can speak on the distinction between his and the Chesterbelloc's views on Capitalism. Does anyone think Woods successfully reconciled the Church's teaching with Free Market principles?
"Does anyone think Woods successfully reconciled the Church’s teaching with Free Market principles?"
You gotta be kidding. Are you serious? Tom Woods is a thoughtful man but Jesus Christ could not open eyes blinded by desire. His message was to free people from their sins and reconcile the world to Himself, not to reconcile sinners to the world. If men prefer the dark satanic mills to the genius that dwells within, who is there left to instruct in matters of "economics?"
His message was to free people from their sins and reconcile the world to Himself, not to reconcile sinners to the world.
Robert,
I'm sorry. I can see how the sequence of my question could look like I might have been asking if Woods could pare down the teaching of the Church so it fit with capitalist theory.
I was NOT asking that. I was asking if capitalism could possible take a form or expression that was not hostile to the teaching of the Church. We know socialism can't because it is, at its root, in any form, government control and confiscation. But capitalism???
I note from your response you seem to want to present capitalism as a two-dimensional, straw-man, offering only one possibility its practice can lead to.
Really?
I guess some might consider me a capitalist. I invent and sell products to support myself and my family––but not only that. I sell what I make directly to customers. I hate middle men. Why? A large part of my satisfaction comes, not when I've fed my lust for excessive wealth, ha!, but when something I've provided really blesses the person who has received and is using it.
I couldn't feel clear in my conscience if it were otherwise. A large part of my desire by being in business is to help others as well as myself, not to reconcile myself, sinner that I am, to the world.
I note distributism is not necessarily a system that a generally capitalist society would forbid. I'm a distributist, and run my business accordingly and work compatibly with lots of capitalist companies and compete with many of them, much, much bigger than I am. So far, so good.
You may have seen the movie Other People's Money. In it you see two sides of capitalism. DeVito an investor, rapes and pillages companies. Gregory Peck plays the owner of a small town company and runs it like a father––with a real sense of commitment and sacrifice for those in the community. He sees his company like an extended family. I can't see how they are morally equivalent.
My question stands, but let me rephrase it a bit better in two parts:
1. Is Capitialism, in any, ANY and all of its forms, intrinsically incompatible with the teaching of the Church?
2.Does Woods shed any light on this issue, since he considers himself a faithful Catholic and an advocate of Capitalism and sees no necessary contradiction?
Tom Woods is an old friend of mine. I have known him since he was a student. So far as I can tell he knows very little philosophy and less theology. He is a movement libertarian who repeats the false teachings of the cult. Neither his book nor a Hollywood movie provide anything useful for a discussion of this type. Capitalism was part of a general liberal revolution against Christianity and traditional forms of authority. In running its inevitable course, it spawned socialism. Capitalism (as opposed to free markets and limited government) and socialism (as opposed to Christian moral responsibility) are the Scylla and Charybdis of modern political thought and modern political action. I would hope that participants in this discussion would understand that we have sailed past these monsters into better water. In fact, Robert's response was quite reasonable, and Mr. Ridenour's retort makes it clear that it was. However it is phrased, the question has still been turned into a search for a Christian-friendly capitalism, which is really a capitalist-friendly Christianity. Even to raise the question is to beg it. The real question is what sort of just and effective social and economic orders would Christian thought give rise to and find convenient.
#17 (Mr. RIDENOUR)--Perhaps two or three years ago, there was a spirited back-and-forth regarding the Catholic faith and the free market (libertarian) viewpoint between LewRockwell.com authors and ChroniclesMagazine.org authors (I believe Mr. Richert gave much better than he got). The electrons involved were recycled when this web-site was reworked in the spring of 2007, and archive.org was drected, apparently, to bypass the site--but dare one hope that webmaster Wolf has back-ups discs or cartridges that can be brought into play?
All of the files are here. Getting them into a usable format—now that's something else. Did you have in mind Mr. Richert's public debate with Stephan Kinsella during the summer of 2004?
The Churches are arguably the worst offenders concerning greed.My old (Catholic) high school is constantly sending me missives begging for money.Immunity from taxes,it seems,is not enough.
Inordinate desire for wealth is the direct outcome of our degenerated WASP elite.Oligarchic regimes devolve from aristocratic ones.As blood declines in importance,lucre rises.And its mainly patrician matrons who are responsible for the transformation.Just ask Plato.
Capitalism is a shoddy affair.Capital,according to some,should be allowed free reign to do as it pleases,in pursuit of ever greater profits.But when the tables are turned on the profiteers,i.e."if you can do whatever you so please,then so can I," the big strong he-men of Main Street turn into a bunch of screeching old ladies seeking assistance from every group they have abused or contemned;Churches,workers,humanists,racialists,nationalist,and of course,the state.
Off with their heads.
'what sort of just and effective social and economic orders would Christian thought give rise to and find convenient'
I have wondered about this before. It's possible that a look at Byzantine economic regulations which existed in certain periods might help answer this question at least in some small part, though it's hard to find information on that subject. Does the Orthodox church have teachings, comparable to Catholic teaching, which touch on this subject?
The 'middle ages' of Western Europe might also give us a clue, though I dont think feudalism is part of that clue. That leaves us with the Distributists and Southern Agrarians to look at, unless someone has other suggestions.
TJF wrote: Capitalism (as opposed to free markets and limited government) and socialism (as opposed to Christian moral responsibility) are the Scylla and Charybdis of modern political thought and modern political action.
This is a very interesting sentence. I understand the Charybdis part and I understand how capitalism does not necessarily mean limited government (witness China or Russia), but what is meant in saying capitalism "as opposed to free markets" - how is capitalism opposed to free markets unless we put a modifier on it like 'corporate' capitalism on 'monopoly' capitalism or 'state managed' capitalism. Or are you defining it with one of these modifiers.
I am not making an argument against the idea that capitalism is opposed to free markets; I just don't understand how.
addendum to 24 above:
Perhaps we could begin to answer such a question if we begin with the premise that the true and ultimate purpose of civilisation and culture are to enable people to come to know God, and that everything should be arranged to serve and promote that end, including the economic structure. If we understand that this ultimate end requires more than just bible study alone, that in fact it necessitates humane learning and all the arts and sciences, as well as crafts and industries, then we may avoid narrow theocratic thinking in the process.
Given the above, it would follow that any concept of 'the good life' - however that term would be defined - would be understood as serving the same end, and would not be an end in and of itself. Thus also with the economic and social structure.
There's a premise, now how would one form such an economic and social structure, and what source of guidance would it be informed by? Now I'm back where I started. Byzantines, Catholic Social Teaching, Orthodox equivalents, Distributists, agrarians.......Aristotle?
Sempronius,
"Inordinate desire for wealth is the direct outcome of our degenerated WASP elite.Oligarchic regimes devolve from aristocratic ones.As blood declines in importance,lucre rises.And its mainly patrician matrons who are responsible for the transformation.Just ask Plato"
It is the result of false religion, or reformed religion, or neglected religion, or defiled religion --- however you phrase it, it is a departure from what Josef Peiper referred to as, Tradition. It was true for the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans,and apparently for Christians too. To rediscover our Tradition is to restore health and sanity to ourselves and culture. I doubt that it can or will be done but it might, and if so, Chronicles and The Rockford Institute will have been obvious contributors to the recovery. We should support what is genuinely good and true and not just anything labeled catholic, jewish or protestant. I am not indifferent to the great religions and their quarrels, but for most of us these days, we never learn to love anything enough to fight for it --unless of course we can get someone else to do the fighting. Taki was right to call Frum "A Bum" against the advice of his lawyers and fellow journalists. Of course, however, Taki is from from the Tradition -- in both blood and faith and sometimes that tradition "reveals" itself.
There is indeed a Byzantine tradition on social justice, if anything a bit more severe than the Catholic. Chrysostom would be the place to begin such a study, though I am not qualified to lead such a discussion. We might all learn together. I am also thinking of posting a few brief passages of the Stoic ex-slave Epictetus, whom I have been reading again lately with great pleasure.
#22 (Webmaster)--Five years ago for the exchange (after which LewRockwell.com struck its colors, as I recall)? It doesn't seem that long ago, but I will accept the word of the Keeper of the System Logs....
As one of those who has not been following along as long, I am also interested in hearing how capitalism is considered opposed to Catholicism. (I have long heard the same said of science and had never believed it, though I understand the sentiment.) I know how American capitalism has become that way, in terms of the sub-cultures, sub-contexts, and people who call themselves capitalists. A lot of libertarians tend to reduce capitalism to some ideal form of selfishness, which is not my understanding of capitalism.
If there is some point I am missing, I'd like to know if it's in Catholicism or capitalism.
Also, Dr. Flemming, you -- and I think others -- have referred to America's culture as "anti-Christian" or if I remember correctly from others, "post-Christian". Is there some reading on this subject you could point to? (preferably less than a full book)
Again, I know people are reluctant to retread old ground, but this is new ground to many. Thanks for your patience.
The combination of capitalism and democracy tends to lead to, at the very least, a large welfare state and, depending how it is defined, socialism, however mild. Laissez-faire capitalism tends to rip asunder traditional society, basic morality, including Christian family life.
If I were to point to one movie that criticized laissez-faire capitalism from, loosely, a Catholic point-of-view, it would be John Ford's "How Green Was My Valley." By movie's end, a hardy Christian family is torn about by the "creative destruction" (a favorite phrase of Michael Ledeen) of capitalism with the sons all sent away from their valley when cheaper cogs were found to fit capitalism's wheel. The village of Conrhonda is a demoralized town by film's end. Anyone notice that only a few of the older miners are willing to risk their lives to save those trapped in the mine explosion. Young miners are not to be seen. As a sidebar, South Wales is a demoralized, wretched place today where men live their lives on the dole and in the pubs and the women have some of the highest rates of illegitimate births in the UK. The old colliery villagers of South Wales are a debased people.
The Southern Agrarians took the position that a regime is to be judged according to the quality of the people it produces (taking for granted that quality reflected the Christian tradition). If that is true, advanced American capitalism is a horrid thing indeed.
Let's remember also that free markets and American capitalism are very different things.
"The Southern Agrarians took the position that a regime is to be judged according to the quality of the people it produces"
As a small step in that direction, I wish our institutions of higher learning would begin again to gage the quality of their education by the quality of their graduates. Of course I am such a dinosaur, I still believe that God can perfect nature but not change it. Is this type of notion called Romantic, superstitious or nostalgic these days? I am so old it was called Aristotelian in my day.
Capitalism--as I remember it from school--is simply private ownership of the means of production. I don't believe capitalism is the root of the current problem. Corporatism--the alliance of the State and big business--is one root. Financialism, with dealmakers rather then product makers accounting for over a quarter of economic output, is another.
Chrysostom is one of those that everybody - including myself - should read, as are the Stoics. Whatever you decide will be welcome.
I wonder what the Distributist line of thought on the issue would be (and where would one begin a good study of Distributism beyond just the see-spot-run basics?).
"Capitalism–as I remember it from school–is simply private ownership of the means of production."
Bingo. Apparently the term comes along with a lot of other things for some here–––things they, rightly or wrongly, regard as intrinsic to Capitalism.
"Corporatism–the alliance of the State and big business–is one root. Financialism, with dealmakers rather then product makers accounting for over a quarter of economic output, is another."
I know this as Crony capitalism––the so-called American system––a corrupt form of the ideal, and something that is anything but free market oriented, something that really does lead to socialism. It is also probably one of those "other things" some here may have in mind when ever they hear the term. Myself, I'm not sure Cronyism and similar such things are really intrinsic to Capitalism, except perhaps when seen as some straw-man abstraction painted by some authoritarian professor in the antiseptic atmosphere of academia. Rather, I think it is fallen man that puts the "Crony" into Crony Capitalism, and no system, how ever perfect in theory, can adequately remedy that. Otherwise, Christ would have suffered unnecessarily.
"However it is phrased, the question has still been turned into a search for a Christian-friendly capitalism, which is really a capitalist-friendly Christianity."
Dr. Fleming, Thank you for your response. Your superior knowledge blesses me. I"ve admired your writing and speaking for some time. But superior learning in a particular field, no matter how great, is not a license to put words into another person's mouth or dictate to him what his true intentions are. I asked what I asked: can capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) be practiced in a way that is not hostile to the Churches teachings, and if anyone thought Woods made a worthy defense of free market capitalism in his book on the subject? Please accept the question at face value. As a Catholic convert that last thing I would want is to pare down the teaching of the Church and "protestantize" it.
As for your comments regarding Dr. Woods, I can only paraphrase St. Teresa of Avilla: "If you speak of your "old friends" like that, how do you speak of your enemies?"
I would remind Mr. Ridenour that this website is set up and maintained by the Rockford Institute to promote a reasoned and serious discussion. It is up to us to define what is reasoned and serious. If we are to be required to explain for the thousandth time the elementary terms and to restate old arguments, we shall never get anywhere. I have had friends who are atheist Communists. I would not turn to them for a wholesome view of politics, economics, or religion. Mr. Woods is a student of American history. From anything I have ever read from his pen or from many conversations, he is not schooled in ancient or Medieval thought or languages and is no serious student of philosophy or theology. I have said as much to him in conversation and once delicately suggested that he read more and write less. I esteem him as a decent person who wishes to do good in the world, but I think it is important to warn our few readers against the frivolity of his thinking on social issues. As for putting words into your mouth or dictating your true intentions, I have done neither. What I have done, by way of shorthand, is to state what the implications of your line of thinking are. In the same way I would tell a Renaissance Neoplatonist like Ficino that despite his professions of faith, he was really looking for a kind of Christianity that would fit Iamblichus and not vice versa. You are free to believe what you believe you believe, but others are free to believe and to show that you are mistaken.
No, the problem is not simply crony capitalism or "corporatism." To put this discussion on track I propose two things, 1) a brief list of definitions, and 2) some texts, beginning with Epictetus, then perhaps Chrysostom and St. Thomas.
Epictetus
(55-135)
Dr. Fleming,
Have never read him but am looking forward to the discussion. Could you provide a link or the particular work and translator you would prefer for this discussion?
Epictetus was a former Greek slave and an adherent of Stoicism, a philosophical school established by a Phoenician merchant named Zeno, who, to be frank, borrowed a good deal from Aristotle and dressed up his borrowings with fancy terminology. Although Stoics developed a logic and a physics, they are mainly known for their ethics. The key Stoic principle is to live life according to nature, that is, to live consistently with what we rationally can determine is the purpose established by the gods. They very radically and dangerously distinguished between that which is good--those virtuous actions and attitudes that we rationally determine--what is bad--the opposite--and a vast realm of the indifferent, which would include health, wealth, prestige, success, and even friends and family (though here, they are somewhat subtler). Later Stoicism, especially preached by Romans, had a strong emphasis on doing one's duty according to one's station, and in this form, Stoicism had a great impact on Christian moral theology. Many older writers have emphasized (quite correctly) the similarities between Seneca the Younger and St. Paul, who actually was haled before the court of Seneca's half-brother Gallio.
We can talk later about Epictetus' life and how his discourses came to be written down by the historian Arrian (famous for his life of Alexander), but for the moment, let us read some parts of Book I. Because these are snippets of discourse, it is not important to read everything or in sequence. I'll be using the Loeb edition, but a readable text is online at:
http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html
Let us look at chapters 1-4, 9-23. Make sure you download the text version, because what is posted on the site is only the first half of Book I. I do not intend to make this a long discussion or even to give Epictetus the serious treatment he deserves, only to show how an ancient pagan viewed ethical questions relevant to our discussion here. I should say that Epictetus does seem to be a wonderful teacher and while perhaps not an original thinker he is an excellent gateway to the Stoic tradition. Like the other great popular Stoics (Marcus Aurelius and Seneca) he has been read and enjoyed by non-philosophers more than by the professionals.
For me, the hang up in this discussion centers in part around the fact that we are commingling notions of what is 'necessary' and what is 'good'. Regarding capitalism (or socialism) or any other system designed to meet human material needs, I think it is helpful to first put it in the realm of the necessary. None of these systems are good - but some may be better than other at providing the necessary.
But no economic system of any type, in my view, can ever be good. To me this possibility is ruled out when the Lord said, "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them." Now, this is an expression of the Kingdom of God, which we are to gaze it but will not completley embody in the present times.
So, this leaves us with two relevant questions:
(1) Is our economic system useful at providing the necessary?
(2) Are we consuming ourselves with the necessary to the neglect of the good?
(We could then ask, 'What is good?' but if we are Christian that is given to us by God.)
On the two questions above, I would, roughly answer the following:
On 1, in the US, mostly yes (much of what we want in addition is not really necessary); in the world, for a lot of it, no.
On 2, absolutely, we are consuming ourselves with the necessary (that's why as a whole we are not good people). Our elites actually believe in economics (the worst form of idolatry); non-elites don't really believe in it but they spend a lot of time wanting things from it (so it manifests as temptation / desire - better than believing in it but still a problem).
In short, I don't think there is a Christian economics of any type - Christianity is the bounding (and, one day in hope, the casting off) of 'economics'. Our 'economics' is an extension of the will of our rulers, and we should obey it but neither let it choke off our 'good' (like our non-elites tend to do) and, more importantly, never idolize it (like our elites do) just as early Christians did not bow to Caeser.