Defining Terms
"The Free Market"
Libertarians and capitalists write as if there were some natural or divine force known as "the market". There is no such thing. There is no MARKET, only markets, and a market is a place where people exchange goods and services, sometimes but not always for money. Think of the Athenian Agora or a local farmers' market. Another way to look at markets is to describe them as playing fields for exchanges. A market as place or playing field may become institutionalized, as a person or group of persons or a community or government claims ownership and the right to regulate it, just as the city or a business group may own a baseball stadium and a league of team owners agree to a set of rules.
A market is said to be free, not because no one pays entrance or user fees--they almost always do--but because access is not restricted. However, once a market become institutionalized, they can never be entirely free, because the owners and regulators will always seek to maximize their own revenues and those of their friends, relations, allies, and fellow-citizens.
There is no known society without some kind of market. Even communist countries had informal and black markets, and one may have comparatively free markets (hardly ever absolutely free) in societies where even the word capitalism is unknown. When capitalists equate the "free market" with capitalism, they are either lying or hopelessly ignorant.
Let me quote a few paragraphs from my Perspective in the current number of Chronicles:
“Libero Ingresso” says the little sign on the doors of an Italian shop. English-speakers who know enough Italian to translate the words, Free Entrance, sometimes wonder if there was a time when Italian shopkeepers charged customers an admission fee, to be refunded, perhaps, if a purchase was made. It is just the sort of thing you might expect of Old Europe. We Anglo-Saxons, after all, revealed the truths of free market economics at a time when the rest of the world was groaning in the darkness of mercantilism and protectionism, when honest farmers and merchants paid taxes on their windows and might be forced to labor on their lord’s land or the king’s highway.
Alas, these speculations, so comforting to our Anglo-Saxon vanity, are dashed on the hard rock of linguistic reality. Libero (from Latin liber) means “free” in the sense of unrestricted or open, not “free” in the sense of no payment required (for which the Italians still use the Latin gratis). French preserves the distinction between liber (French libre) and gratuitus (gratuity). In Spanish, de gastos (of charge) is added to libre for things that cost no money; otherwise one might try to walk out of bar without paying for a Cuba Libre.
Romance languages have inherited something of Latin’s precision. It is in English (and German) where the notions of liberty and costlessness are confused. I wonder how many of us, when we hear the terms “free market” and “free trade,” think initially of cost-free access to markets? When, as I have frequently done, I make the joke that there is no such thing as a free market, because there are always fees to be paid, I hardly ever get a response, neither a flicker of recognition nor a snicker of contempt. In fact, a free market is a market into which anyone can enter and free trade is a trade between nations that cannot be forbidden or limited by national governments. This latter phrase is somewhat ambiguous, since governments often limit international trade by imposing tariffs. This ambiguity does not alter the fundamental fact, which is that free markets and free trade are not, by definition, free of cost but (supposedly) free from coercion.
“Well, what difference does it make? This quibbling over the meaning of words is not going to help us out of the current economic crisis.”
Possibly not, but it is hard to see that any useful set of solutions can be proposed if we deceive ourselves, and, in the world we live in, there is hardly a more pernicious form of deception than the misuse—deliberate or unintentional—of language. We have lived so long on the bad ideas that lie behind bad words that our minds have been poisoned and our very wills corrupted to the marrow of our being. Freedom for us is no longer viewed as a positive good, a moral and spiritual way of living that has been shaped by centuries of experience; it is now only the right to be perverse—to take drugs that make us stupid, to read nasty books that make us crazy, and to molest other people’s children and kill our own. Kris Kristofferson probably intended no harm by his oft-quoted line, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” but he did succeed in encapsulating in a mere ten words the servility of modern men and women for whom freedom means dependency, whether on a drug, a guru, or a social worker.
Later on in the same article, I summon the ghost of Cicero to comment on some of our errors, and here is what he has to say about terms like "the economy" and "the market."
I asked Cicero how he would have handled the American economy.
“Economy? That is the art of managing a household and, as I understand, you people apply it to theories of buying and selling. Your first mistake, it seems to me, lay in turning ideas into things. A good Roman would not do this; his language would not permit it. But you people are forever talking about history, as if it meant the events of the past (instead of the study of the past) or the geography of Europe as if it meant the actual places rather than a description of places. What a muddle you seem to have got yourself into, where you cannot speak about things except as abstractions. You even, I am told, worship an almighty dollar made out of mere paper. I wish we had thought of that one when we were raising money to fight against Mark Antony, but we knew even then that only a tyrant would degrade the currency.”
“Excuse me, Marcus Tullius, but could we return to the question? I know you’d like to get back to your conversation with Scipio Africanus…”
“As I was saying, you people are always mistaking words and ideas for things and then, by treating what is unreal as if it were real, you cannot see the real. I heard what you were saying a few paragraphs above, and you are perfectly correct, if a bit shallow, in questioning the meaning of that misleading phrase, the “free market.” You people seem to think that there is some ultimate principle or universal law of nature you call “The Market,” when in fact there is no such thing. There is no “Market”, only markets. Markets are not ideas or mechanisms of exchange: They are places where people buy and sell things, and it hardly makes any difference whether the market in question is the forum holitorium in Rome, where vegetables were sold (you can find the ruins in several nearly derelict churches), or something like your New York Stock exchange, where most of the orders are now placed through these computers you seem so proud of, though to me they seem like nothing more interesting than a gigantic abacus that enslaves the very people who pretend to be masters.
Capital and Capitalism
We have to begin by distinguishing at least three separate notions: 1) capital, 2) the economic system that is typified by owners of capital and which is misleadingly known as capitalism, and 3) the ideology of Capitalism.
Capital is simply a fancy word used to describe what a man has to sell and the necessary means for setting up and maintaining his enterprise. Let us imagine a truck gardener, who takes his vegetables to a farmer's market. His capital consists of such things as the vegetables he has to sell, the pickup truck he uses to take them to market, his tractor and other farm implements, the 10 acres he farms, etc. The time comes when he wishes to expand his business by buying another ten acres, but he does not have the cash, either for the land or for the additional seed and implements. The widow next door gives him $100,000 in return for a fourth of the business and a fourth of the profits. She is now part-owner, though she does no work.
The new field and expanding operations, however, require two illegal Mexicans to work. Where previously the farmer had done everything himself, he now has employees. In other societies he might have bought the employees, who would be known as slaves. The situation of the two is not so different. Slaves in many societies had a good deal of free time and independence, while the Mexicans have no more income and a good deal more insecurity.
In any event, capital is universal in all but the most primitive societies, and some form of "capitalism", that is, ownership of the means of the production and control of laborers, is almost as universal. The Romans were great capitalists in this slightly erroneous sense of the word, though Roman social life and ideology was not Capitalist, that is, Romans liked to think of themselves either as patriotic gentlemen or farmers, much as an 18th century English capitalist liked to become a country gentleman as soon as he could afford it.
Capitalism with a capital C, however, is the system and ideology that grew up with liberalism, and it emphasizes the unrestricted rights of capitalists, whose activities more or less define the society, as, for example, fighting noblemen defined parts of Medieval Europe. Let me quote from my students' book on socialism:
Liberals usually (though not always) support capitalism, but liberalism and capitalism must be distinguished. Capitalism, although it is often confused with liberal theories of the free market, is actually an economic system that emphasizes capital, that is, the money invested into a company that pays wages to its employees. In principle, capitalism is incompatible with socialism, because capitalism presupposes private property and laws protecting property, while socialists traditionally have advocated public ownership of the great economic interests. In reality, however, capitalism and socialism have tended to merge. In countries that have nationalized large businesses, capitalist managers were often hired to run the corporations, while in countries that are officially capitalistic, large corporations cooperate closely with government agencies and often secure important benefits to themselves and to the detriment of smaller rivals. Adam Smith, the first theorist of capitalism, noted that rival businessmen would rather combine to control, by fixing wages and prices, than compete in the marketplace. In the 20th century this has usually meant a close collaboration of business and government, in capitalist as much as in socialist countries.
Liberalism
From Socialism
"In the United States political discourse has been complicated by the deliberate misuse of terms. Historically and still, for the most part, in Europe, the words liberal, conservative, and socialist have clear and distinct meanings. Liberals, or “classical liberals” as they are known in America, believe (as their name suggests) in liberty. Since the purpose of this book is to define and describe socialism, it is enough to say at this point that socialists emphasize economic justice, the redistribution of wealth and opportunity, and state ownership or control of great economic interests.
Liberal movements and parties oppose all unnecessary obstacles to individual liberty, self-fulfillment, and the progress of the human race. Historically, liberals argued against monarchy (though there were liberal monarchists) traditional class structures, established churches, tariffs on trade, and even (in the case of J.S. Mill) against restrictive moral codes and the subjugation of women. Liberals believed that the best economic results would come about in a system of free competition within the marketplace.
If liberalism’s code words are liberty, progress, and competition, conservatives have spoken of the importance of religion, social stability, and traditional loyalties to the family and the nation. Although conservatism, unlike liberalism, never had a clear program or ideology, conservatives instinctively resisted change, and until the mid-20th century, most conservatives were, at best, lukewarm defenders of capitalism and competition. They often agreed with the moral arguments put forward by socialists who favored assistance to the poor, and they disagreed sharply with the liberal faith in free trade. Without being nationalists, conservatives are eager to defend their nations, a fact that makes international conservative cooperation extremely difficult.
In the 20th century, conservatives in the US and the UK adopted much of the liberal economic agenda, without necessarily sacrificing all of their old commitments to family, aristocracy, and religion. Liberals, as they lost the support of the working classes, either turned conservative or adopted the parts of the socialist agenda they found compatible with their own. For example, liberals originally spoke of liberty in terms of freedom from restraint, but in the late 19th century some of them began to speak of liberty in terms of the freedom to do something, such as to pursue a professional career. These liberals concluded that the poor could only pursue their plans if they were given free education.
The changing meanings of these terms can be very confusing, seeing that American “conservatives” like Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley are really liberals, while liberals like Senator Edward Kennedy or Hilary Rodham Clinton are closer to being socialists than liberals. To keep things simple, I shall use conservative and liberal in their classical senses, though when capitalized they will refer to conservative or liberal parties and their members. Since American “liberals” do not like to be called socialists, they will usually be described as “left liberals,” though when their programs coincide with those of socialist parties, the spade will have to be called a spade and not a garden fork."
For this discussion, perhaps it is enough to say that liberal individualism, with its opposition to community, authority and tradition and its emphasis on universal rational principles, although it includes many morally wholesome principles, is false to human nature and inconsistent with Christianity. So-called Democratic Capitalism, which puts economic and political liberty as the highest good or, worse still, relies on the principle of subjective value, cannot be reconciled with the morality of Christ and the Apostles or of the Church's teachings. We can speak more about this later, but there is no point in discussing anything, unless we agree on terms.
These brief and unpolished paragraphs are not intended as the final word on anything but only brief introductions to clarify the terms of discourse.If I have misstated or overstated something, I am happy to be corrected. But I do ask you all not to distract the discussion with allusions to this or that classical liberal or libertarian, even if, like Acton, they thought they could reconcile Christianity and Capitalism. As Acton once observed of himself, as a Catholic he was a bad liberal (or was it vice versa?).
Entries(RSS)
Many thanks to Dr. Fleming for this ground-clearing essay and definition of terms. While libertarians and capitalists like to refer to "the market", economic commentators of all varieties refer to "the economy" as if this is something that exists independently of and in opposition to the actual economic activity of individual people. Thus a person who practices thrift (financial prudence and deferred gratification) is said to be hurting "the economy", which depends on consumer borrowing and spending. The propagandists of modern day finance capitalism thereby promote debt slavery, made comfortable by an excess of material goods which are often a further hindrance to the practice of virtue and eternal salvation. Both personal freedom and virtue are sacrificed to make various aggregate statistics look good.
Thanks, Kirt Higdon for hitting one important nail on the head. Just as there is not such thing as THE MARKET, so there is no such thing THE ECONOMY. From the same Perspective, I summoned an imaginary Cicero to combat out loose talk in modern American, but before inserting the passage, please tell me if Lance is doing well.
I asked Cicero how he would have handled the American economy.
“Economy? That is the art of managing a household and, as I understand, you people apply it to theories of buying and selling. Your first mistake, it seems to me, lay in turning ideas into things. A good Roman would not do this; his language would not permit it. But you people are forever talking about history, as if it meant the events of the past (instead of the study of the past) or the geography of Europe as if it meant the actual places rather than a description of places. What a muddle you seem to have got yourself into, where you even speak things except as abstractions. You even, I am told, worship an almighty dollar made out of mere paper. I wish we had thought of that one when we were raising money to fight against Mark Antony, but we knew even then that only a tyrant would degrade the currency.”
“Excuse me, Marcus Tullius, but could we return to the question? I know you’d like to get back to your conversation with Scipio Africanus…”
“As I was saying, you people are always mistaking words and ideas for things and then, by treating what is unreal as if it were real, you cannot see the real. I heard what you were saying a few paragraphs above, and you are perfectly correct, if a bit shallow, in questioning the meaning of that misleading phrase, the “free market.” You people seem to think that there is some ultimate principle or universal law of nature you call “The Market,” when in fact there is no such thing. There is no “Market”, only markets. Markets are not ideas or mechanisms of exchange: They are places where people buy and sell things, and it hardly makes any difference whether the market in question is the forum holitorium in Rome, where vegetables were sold (you can find the ruins in several nearly derelict churches), or something like your New York Stock exchange, where most of the orders are now placed through these computers you seem so proud of, though to me they seem like nothing more interesting than a gigantic abacus that enslaves the very people who pretend to be masters.
Lucid and timely. Our society is Babel yet again (for the umteenth time, I think). It seems impossible to have any discussion with anyone without having to define terms. You cannot talk about love, politics, economics, the arts, et cetera ad nauseum, without clarifying. I refuse to enter political discussions with most of my acquaintances (and many of my friends) because I spend so much time trying to define terms that they lose interest and change the subject, or simply ignore me.
These helpful definitions will be useful in clearing some of the Babelonian confusion from my mind.
The above got muddled in the computer. The sentence should be "What a muddle you seem to have got yourself into, where you cannot speak about things except as abstractions. "
#4 The muddle is not generally aided by computers. Computers are good for some things and not others. They are good as tools for typing text, accounting, complex mathematics, storing and retrieving certain types of data and various similar things.
They are very bad at virtual reality. Unfortunately most computer programmers (and the Microsofts of the world) think otherwise. I am a programmer by profession. I have had discussions with many programmers who seem convinced that the real universe can be abstracted into a little box on their desk. I recently took a computer language course where the professor boldly stated that the world is nothing more than a series of patterns, and that computers can be programmed to recognize them and deal with them. Of course, in real life he liked to sail real sailboats and drive real motorcycles.
Excellent essay, Dr. Fleming. I enjoyed Mr. Higdon's post as well. Along the lines of Mr. Higdon's post, I would add that government statistics record the economic efforts of the child-care worker while it ignores the labor of the mother who stays at home to raise her children. A schoolteacher's work is recorded as an economical statistic; the work of the homeschool mother is not.
On another tangent, how did that renowned Catholic thinker and economic liberal Michael Novak go so wrong?
"How did that renowned Catholic thinker and economic liberal Michael Novak go so wrong?"
Come on Derek, you know the answer to that question. People are promoted these days. They are created as experts, they do not attract attention by their own merits or truth. The neo-cons were called "conservatives" (when they were really boat people,) the "conservatives" were called "right wing of the party",(they were party hacks) traditionalists are called unpatriotic extremists, isolationists, nostalgia mongers, (when they are just ordinary folks) Words like renowned, catholic, liberal,etc. have little meaning given the folks providing the definitions. And that is just the way they like it.
What do we do, then, with all of the people, many movement conservatives included, who continue to identify capitalism with traditional economic liberty?
I guess my real question is how can Capitalist ideology be described in terms that distinguish it from simple free markets?
I have added the following paragraphs on liberalism, which is the real menace rather than capitalism per se:
Liberalism
From Socialism
"In the United States political discourse has been complicated by the deliberate misuse of terms. Historically and still, for the most part, in Europe, the words liberal, conservative, and socialist have clear and distinct meanings. Liberals, or “classical liberals” as they are known in America, believe (as their name suggests) in liberty. Since the purpose of this book is to define and describe socialism, it is enough to say at this point that socialists emphasize economic justice, the redistribution of wealth and opportunity, and state ownership or control of great economic interests.
Liberal movements and parties oppose all unnecessary obstacles to individual liberty, self-fulfillment, and the progress of the human race. Historically, liberals argued against monarchy (though there were liberal monarchists) traditional class structures, established churches, tariffs on trade, and even (in the case of J.S. Mill) against restrictive moral codes and the subjugation of women. Liberals believed that the best economic results would come about in a system of free competition within the marketplace.
If liberalism’s code words are liberty, progress, and competition, conservatives have spoken of the importance of religion, social stability, and traditional loyalties to the family and the nation. Although conservatism, unlike liberalism, never had a clear program or ideology, conservatives instinctively resisted change, and until the mid-20th century, most conservatives were, at best, lukewarm defenders of capitalism and competition. They often agreed with the moral arguments put forward by socialists who favored assistance to the poor, and they disagreed sharply with the liberal faith in free trade. Without being nationalists, conservatives are eager to defend their nations, a fact that makes international conservative cooperation extremely difficult.
In the 20th century, conservatives in the US and the UK adopted much of the liberal economic agenda, without necessarily sacrificing all of their old commitments to family, aristocracy, and religion. Liberals, as they lost the support of the working classes, either turned conservative or adopted the parts of the socialist agenda they found compatible with their own. For example, liberals originally spoke of liberty in terms of freedom from restraint, but in the late 19th century some of them began to speak of liberty in terms of the freedom to do something, such as to pursue a professional career. These liberals concluded that the poor could only pursue their plans if they were given free education.
The changing meanings of these terms can be very confusing, seeing that American “conservatives” like Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley are really liberals, while liberals like Senator Edward Kennedy or Hilary Rodham Clinton are closer to being socialists than liberals. To keep things simple, I shall use conservative and liberal in their classical senses, though when capitalized they will refer to conservative or liberal parties and their members. Since American “liberals” do not like to be called socialists, they will usually be described as “left liberals,” though when their programs coincide with those of socialist parties, the spade will have to be called a spade and not a garden fork."
Dr. Fleming, a noble initiative. I believe the American tendency to mistake ideas for things is deep and endemic and effects more than just economics. How else could people believe in things like global democracy, equality, war for democracy, right to choose, etc.
Thanks, Professor Wilson. Yes, and then they mistake mere words for ideas. Where would teh social sciences be, if sociologists and political scientists could not pretend to have come up with a new idea, when all they had done was to invent new terms or pervert old ones? Equality is bad enough even in principle, but it is in fact used as a tool to repress the industrious and useful members of society. Humpty Dumpty has a new column in the May Chronicles, in which he tries to eliminate the misuse of key words that have been used to stifle rational discourse, words like "problem," "issue," and "concerns." I do not know what else we can do in these times, if not to shed light, however feeble and flickering, on what words really mean, whether Greek words of the Scriptures or the weasel words of American public discourse.
Yes, this is excellent. Thanks for providing such traction, Dr. Fleming.
I think I have come to some understanding about the issue. It seems to me that capitalism as liberalism and socialism are both imbalances of the Christian nature that are each perverted into false ideals and often combined when convenient to confuse and manipulate. Are there examples of periods of time where a more pure blend of the two have existed *en masse*, such that it could not fairly be called capitalism or socialism?
I should back up and state that I am considering some mixture of the two as being compatible with Christianity. Socialism being incompatible because it destroys the individual, liberalism/capitalism being incompatible because it destroys the community, which can then stunt individuals along with socialism. But some balance between free will exercised over private domain along with all consideration to the community cascading from ourselves (to our families, neighbors, larger communities, etc.) seems possible.
What is this balance called? Or do we only recognize and name the perverse extremes? This balance as manifested in an "Economy" would flow from a culture of righteous individuals and families.
Has such an economic culture existed? If it has, I'm sure it must have been destroyed since it could not be controlled and dominated by ambitious individuals.
Dr Wilson @10 and Dr Fleming @11 bring to mind what R.L. Dabney wrote about people wanting the appearance of things, but not the reality. I have come to see this as the quintessential element of modern American society. Given that this desire is based on word manipulation, it's no wonder the language has become degraded, or that it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with most people, especially if they are under the age of 35.
TJF @ 9
Dr. Fleming,
Thanks for the definitions from your book, Socialism. I just finished reading it recently and enjoyed it very much. I know it was written for high school students as a survey of the origins and developemnet of Socialism, but it is now a college level book. Hell, it is probabaly a graduate level book. Very much enjoyed it all the same. Thanks for the good book and this discussion.
Thanks for all the really good and helpful comments. I cannot at this moment prepare a detailed reply, but I would say to Mr. McCabe that rather than seeking a balance between capitalism and socialism or some mid-way point we should be seeking a point of triangulation from the two extremes, that is, to note what is correct about both false ideologies and then to find the underlying principle that connects them. My shorthand answer is that we should seek the common denominator of decent pre-Christian and successful Christian societies. I have been researching this topic for 25 years but have never managed to find a way of writing it up persuasively. I hope to make one last effort to do so and will be floating trial balloons both on the website and in the magazine. Do we need to add more definitions, e.g., of socialism, "the Right," etc.?
Definitions are always helpful. I don't know how useful these two terms are to this discussion, but I'd be interested in a good definition, if it is even possible, of "distributism" and "agrarian." I use these terms in conversations and papers for class but, if I am honest, I only have a vague understanding of what I mean by them. Is distributism even a viable economic term? I really don't know.
Defining "the Right" would also be helpful. I don't have it on hand, but there is a good article by John Lukacs titled, if I remember correctly, "American Conservatism: The Terminological Problem." It was helpful to me in noting the difference between American Conservatives and the European Right.
We need to define fascism and theocracy, both favorite boogie words thrown around by the left, center and even the right.
On the subject of socialism, I welcome (I think) the radicalization of the rhetoric on the right in calling Obama a socialist. But what I think Obama really is almost precisely is a Social Democrat. (With some corporatism thrown in for good measure.) But this radicalization of rhetoric on the right will only help if people also realize that the GOP and its candidates are generally only slightly less so.
"We need to define fascism and theocracy"
An excellent point!
We also need to define one of the neo-conservative terms of endearment-Islamofascism. It is one of Mark Levin's favorite words. I would ask whether there are any Mussolini devotees in the Middle East or whether Islamofascism is as dishonest a word as the word gay is to describe homosexuals.
In thinking about capitalism and socialism, it would help to take as a benchmark some of the best contemporary exponents of each. For capitalism, try Robert Benne's book on democratic capitalism, a useful corrective to Michael Novak's better known but deeply flawed treatment of that subject. For socialism, see G.A. Cohen's three decades-old book on Marxism. Cohen (who occupies the Oxford chair previously held by Isaiah Berlin) has in recent years been positively affected by Christian ideas, or rather by the politico-economic implications of Christian thinking, as his most recent book indicates.
I understand fascism to be the corporate welfare state, in which "public/private partnerships" (how often do we hear that term?) have become the political equivalent of chemical compounds: creations with properties distinct from those of their individual elements, and difficult-to-impossible to dissolve. Jack boots and government thugs are the inevitable accoutrements of fascism, not its essence.
In any case, need I state the obvious, i.e., that the US in 2009 is a fascist state?
"We also need to define one of the neo-conservative terms of endearment-Islamofascism."
Islamofascism is on its face an absurd term. Those who use it reveal their ignorance.
"In any case, need I state the obvious, i.e., that the US in 2009 is a fascist state?"
Mark, I don't have much use for our current government, but it is not fascist. Fascism invoked tradition, ethnic bonds, religion, etc. Our current government is scornful of these things and trying its best to stamp them out. It considers them impediments to be crushed, not tools to be exploited.
Perhaps it would be wise to take the Aristotelian approach to defining and clarifying these different terms. First, we could examine the ends proper to economics in general and from a Christian and ancient perspective. Then we examine the ends of both socialism and capitalism and subsequently the means by which these ends are to be reached. Obviously neither ideology can be completely wrong in assessing human nature, it is probably closer to the truth that each has a partial view of the proper purpose of economics.
I think Dr. Fleming makes the point clear in his post that, fundamentally, these questions are about the philosophy of human nature and the nature of the community, not the charts and graphs usually found in college economics classes.
All definitions will be immensely helpful.
I enjoy reading the pieces here. Was Christianity the first instance of Marxist doctrines in the sense of making everyone equal in the eyes of God? The Romans were opposed to Christianity on the gounds that it was not Roman. Christianity preached humility and obedience--which is why it was so popular among the poor who first had to worship underground as Christians for fear of being persecuted. Despite everything that the ancients had (whose civilization is unparalleled and I cannot cease admiring the Greeks the more I read about them), they did not value humans as equals--the slave did not count insofar as he had no political power and was often conquered folk-- you have Aristotle saying the slave cannot be fully human as he is not fully free. The Christian vitues seem at odds with the Greek virtue of magnaminity--Christianity appealed to many people eventually, owing to the fact that people suffer and need something to justify it--But I wonder if the notion of the inherent value of human beings might also be based on not revealed truths, but on reason. You have this in the Eastern religions which are not based on miracles--I am not saying that they challenge Christianity--they do not challenge any religions, but simply that some random events in Galilee might not hold for everyone--especially those who have been following religions that date prior to the Christian, Jewish or Muslim ones. As a non-Christian, I fail to see what good Christianity did to the Greco-Roman world other than give a voice to the voiceless--and a system of morality to those nations outside Greece and Rome that did not have a civilization but copied from Greece and Rome--Looking at Scandinavian countries, it seems they are prosperous materially although they do not fully abide by Christian principles in terms of morals. This has always intrigued me. This does not mean I am against Christianity--just that when one is outside a value system, one has a different way of perceiving it. I think it foolish to challenge religious beliefs of people--secularism leads ultimately to a disassociation with one's roots, and Christianity being 2000 years old in the West, is a part of it now, although borrowed at first.
The conflation of name with thing and then the further manipulation of the name (and thing) is a plague that has reached pandemic proportions. I do find it strange that "classical liberals" who are generally so keen to demolish the abstractions of Keynesian macroeconomics (and justly so) refuse to apply their adored Occam's razor to "the market," "the economy.". Or at least are inconsistent in doing so. It seems that abstractions have (however imperfectly) conquered reality, rather like Breughels' "The Triumph of the Dead," abstractions being dead things like SIVs and structured finance.
I also recall a man mistaking himself for a conservative pronouncing that "history is what happened," in so many words, rather than "the study of the past." Rush Limbaugh, embodying error as is so oft the case.
A little bit of clarification is in order. Christianity and Marxism have little if anything to do with one another, and Christian socialism is as self-contradictory as Christian capitalism.
No one in his right mind has ever regarded slaves and proletarians as social, cultural, political equals. The Stoics, like the Christians, did regard slaves as equally human and equally capable of virtue.
A phrase such as "random events in Galilee" begs many questions and would generally be considered to be deeply offensive.
Scandinavian countries have been a complete mess for two generations. The good news is that they are not reproducing and will soon disappear.
An Aristotelian approach to defninition would begin with an historical examination of what the terms have meant. That is what I tried to sketch out. To discuss the ethical questions, we need to turn away from writing definitions and begin to apply them to, as Edward indicates so clearly, the question of human nature, its proper ends (if there is a nature and if it has an end or ends).
I think Red et al have correctly suggested that Islamo-Fascism is a weasel word that means next to nothing but permits the user to say, "Now, I know that Muslims are fine people and Islam is really a religion of peace, but these few fanatics have misapplied Mahound's teachings," etc etc. Unfortunately,the same can be said for social democrat. Social democratic parties, historically, were Marxist parties that did not call openly for armed revolution--not that they entirely eschewed such tactics. It is important to distinguish socialism from Marxism and Marxism from Marxist-Leninism, and Marxist-Leninism from the virulent nationalist form it assumed under Stalin. To put it simply, Social Democrat are not only socialists with a smiley face put on; they are socialists pure and simple, now matter how much they might quibble about how much of the nation's resources should be owned or controlled by the state.
I cannot imagine what earthly, much less supranatural good could be gained by reading Cohen, especially in this context.
Re- #26
"Rush Limbaugh, embodying error as is so oft the case."
Good point, indeed. It seems that Rush Limbaugh typically embodies pure-T fatheaded ignorance as a frame for his error. How anyone ever mistook the boy for a conservative is beyond me.
I think I have often confused simple tyranny with fascism. But tyranny is just a tool of fascism, as not all tyrants are fascist. I have always thought theocracy was when the hierarchy and law base of a church is the same hierarchy and law base as a country's.
I consider fascism to be at a very different level than socialsim or capitalism, as either could be used to fund the former.
But I am not qualified to start giving definitions.
Perhaps I could ask a question re: fascism. Is fascism always the function of a majority?
Also, Red@22, could you further dismantle the term "Islamofascism"? I assume it is at least misapplied because it tries to describe too many things at once.
"Christianity appealed to many people eventually, owing to the fact that people suffer and need something to justify it–But I wonder if the notion of the inherent value of human beings might also be based on not revealed truths, but on reason."
People do suffer and sometimes even redeem it through acts of grace and charity towards the objects of their love, but abstract suffering in and for itself, has no value to the Christian. Suffering for the mere sake of suffering is not a Christian practice nor should the practice be in need of rationalization except to say it hurts -- or it hurts like hell!!
"You have this in the Eastern religions which are not based on miracles–I am not saying that they challenge Christianity–they do not challenge any religions, but simply that some random events in Galilee might not hold for everyone–especially those who have been following religions that date prior to the Christian, Jewish or Muslim ones."
This is absurd!! The divine dissent is everywhere in Eastern religions. The Root of Jesse and the Divine Stem upholding the Lilly pad (at rest upon the waters) upon which Bhudda is supported are sometimes confused by the ancients but more similar than different in their varied expressions. But rather than compare religions, what one really needs to do is to understand one---especially the one they know by inheritance, or the one they know by living amidst its ruins, its culture, or best of all, by attemmpting to practice one so as not to live like an animal.
"As a non-Christian, I fail to see what good Christianity did to the Greco-Roman world other than give a voice to the voiceless"
One thing it did do on a pragmatic level is save everything that was worth saving of the Greco-Roman culture after that world collapsed -- growing sick from within and weakened from outside invasions. It also replaced the old, fallen and corrupted religion taken over, evidently by demons, with the most recent revelation of God through Christ and his followers, the early "Christians." It also rebuilt Europe and sustained her people for about 1500-- 1700 years. Some of her Architecture --arches, roads, towers, Gothic, etc, and customs, chant, music, food, furniture, villages, neighborhoods, etc. still remain deep within the present rubble that surrounds her. (If one knows where to look.)
Not to thread jack, but I am wondering if anyone can comment on how the Jewish and Muslim faiths meld their economic with their religions. I am under the impression both have a significant body of thought on how economics and faith work together
TJF
I apologize if that statement about Galilee was offensive--it was Schopenhauer I got it from. Regardless, you cannot compare Islam to Christianity to Islam in that Islam is but a corrupted form plagiarized from Christianity and Judiasm --I cannot see how you can even study the tradition from an intellectual point of view apart from hagiography---
Dissent and descent are not the same and I of course meant divine descent. But to believe in one or the other in our times necessarily includes the other. And besides that I refuse to grade my work or to tune up all the extras om my pc for e-mail.
Few people in America (Bernie Sanders even) reject the "free market" entirely and call for the common ownership of the means of production. But they do advocate heavy regulation and in some cases subsidization and a large and generous social safety net. This is what I meant by making the distinction between socialism and social democracy. Now Dr. Fleming would know better if in actuality those distinctions didn't matter on the ground.
The reason I make the point is because I think that objective people would have to concede that the technical description of social democracy describes what we have pretty well. Now I guess people could object that we don’t have social democracy because business has too much of a hand in the decision making and the regulation and safety net are aimed less at mitigating the harshness of the market and more at keeping the peasants appeased.
"This is absurd!! The divine dissent is everywhere in Eastern religions."
However, truth does not come down from above, rather the ascent is above from below in their case. This is how they differ--in that there is no one book condensing the revealed truths--the end goals are the same perhaps--the spiritual above the material--It is no wonder, I find that it is the Christians, those that are not bent on proselytizing, that I find more sympathetic than the secular minded peoples--And to be a true Christian is difficult--
What a certain brand of conservative refuses to understand is that markets operate according to the simple law of supply and demand.The law of supply and demand can best be described as "economic relativism."Another word for relativism is anarchy.Too much freedom brings on anarchy which in turn invites tyranny.
Ezra Pound once asked:"If Liberals (by which he meant classic "real McCoy" Liberals) are not always usurers,then why are usurers always Liberals?"So far as I know,no Liberal (i.e. conservative) has ever answered him.
It has been argued that Marxism is a Christian heresy in that it piggybacks on the Christian idea of history moving toward a future state of perfection
Gargi,
Thank you for your reply.
"truth does not come down from above, rather the ascent is above from below in their case."
The revelation comes from heaven but Jacob's Ladder, St. Benedicts steps of humilty, The Ascent of Mt.Carmel etc. these are all ascents to God. The Revelation or The Way to Heaven is always from God. Christ is God Incarnate-- The Way, The Truth ..." I do not wish to argue or offend and I am not indifferent to Eastern Religions but before one can compare, he must first know. The best commentary on the East that I know of is from Annanda Coomaraswamy who was of the Brahamas or aristocratic class of India,( also the Eastern Art historian for the Boston Museum of Art and a genius for languages ) but his son became a Christian because he lived in the West.( His Father did not want him to "live like an aninmal") His Father knew it was impossible to practice Hinduism in the West just as it was impossible in the East to practice pyscho-therapy. Now it has all changed. Best wishes.
Yes. That is correct. His son could not have become a Brahmin in that he was mixed, so natural to take up Christianity--he did the right thing.
The point is that you can exchange something for something else. If there is no market then somebody tells you what you can and cannot have. The argument is that the first is vastly better than the second. However, by abolishing the market you are still not going stop the neocons from ruling the world. And that is the scenario that is being played out right now.
Or perhaps rather than creating a Christian heresy, Marx constructed a malicious paradoy of the Christian message. The same can be said of Benthamite utilitarianism, democratic capitalism, and the others delusionary philosophies of Progress.
Re Marxism as Christian heresy, I think it is true that neither Marxism nor liberalism could have been invented except as perversions of Christianity, the one distorting the Kingdom of God by removing God, the other by misconstruing personal human worth and moral freedom into the rights of the free individual. It is a backhanded tribute to the power of Christianity that the two most powerful ideologies of the past several centuries were spawned as toxic responses to Christian truth.
I would like now to switch the subject to the moral presuppositions of Christianity and capitalism. I have posted a very brief note on Epictetus, designed to begin a discussion of human worth as opposed to the external and material values celebrated by capitalist liberalism. From there we may proceed briefly to the Sermon on the Mount before hitting the fathers.
I believe you're letting "Christian truth" off the hook a little too easily.It would be closer to the truth to say that Christianity's supplanting of Greco-Roman paganism paved the way for Christian influenced nonsense like Liberalism and Marxism.
Though I havent read it in a while,Thomas Molnar's The Pagan Temptation touches on this.In a pious manner,of course.
Gentile Sempronio, I have no idea what this means. Of course I have read my good friend Thomas Molnar on paganism, as well as the debate he had with my pagan friend Alain de Benoit, but their arguments have little bearing on your statement, which is more like the looniness of another friend of mine, John Gray, whose impudence toward Christianity is matched only by his ignorance of the subject. But even, per impossible, you and Gray were right, what in the world does it have to do with the stated subject at hand? Benoit and Gray are entirely wrong about the Christian tradition. Their antagonism towards the Church is like the childish resentment preserved by immature people who were reared by strict parents. The Nietzschean argument, to credit its author, is ahistorical nonsense does not bear repeating especially in a discussion of the compatibiity or lack thereof of Christianity and Capitalism.
Did not the Western world enter the dark ages after it became Christian? The only good thing it did, was convince the Romans all are equal in the eyes of god--you had this conception in the older Eastern Religions without the Semitic miracles---Any pagan can see that something was lost in the process...
Could someone please expalin to me how the first monastic order came about in the Western World?
The West regained its greatness when it again went back to its Greco-Roman roots during the Renaissance--and by putting religion to the test of philosophy and science....
I mean any pagan who is not Christian....Someone can't see outside a tradion when they are a part of it....Compassion, humility etc., is not a monopoly of the Christian faith and is found amply in the pagan past outside of Greece and Rome...I personally have found the dialogues of Plato and the works of Aristotle more edifying than the Bible...Since we are used to stating our honest opinions here, the Bible strikes me as somewhat primitive...
My dear Gargi, I fear you have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, the textbook propaganda put out by the self-serving apostles of enlightenment, beginning with the Renaissance. Let me just say that, speaking as a classicist who has been going into these questions for some time, there is not much merit in the argument. When the Empire fell to barbarians, it became barbaric, and the only preservation of ancient civilization was done by the Church. The Renaissance was a terrible time for philosophy--none of the Humanists wrote any philosophy worth mentioning--a period of stark decline from the previous two or three centuries. It was also a period dominated by the murkiest superstitions and the blackest magic. This has been a commonplace for two generations, but any serious look at the great thinkers of the Italian Renaissance--at Ficino, Pico, and Bruno, for example--or their successors--Bacon and Descartes--will uncover squalid irrationality and a naked desire for power. I do not say this by way of praise for the preceding age, but only because it is quite simply true. There is no point in discussing anything except on the basis of actual texts. That is why I wish to switch this conversation over to the discussion of Epictetus before it is sucked into the vast irrelevance of the Blogosphere.