Capitalism is falling on hard times. Although Communism theoretically has disappeared (but there are those who argue that the USSR wasn't even Communist anyway), Capitalism has its detractors. Unregulated capitalism, after all, created the 2007 collapse. It is seriously implicated in the environmental crisis. A culture of short-term speculation in New York and San Francisco, especially the "disruption" types of Silicon Valley and the "innovative products" types in the investment banks, has made Capitalism seem like gambling with other people's money. Many, many people question the effectiveness of Capitalism, and even its morality.
Furthermore, there are those who declare it as the end-all, be-all solution to life's problem. "The Market" is praised as a endless source of innovation that will, in some hitherto undiscovered way, create a panacea of affluent utopia. By overhyping Capitalism, its supporters have harmed it even more than the thoughtful critic (or the ridiculous banner-wavers).
So let's lay a few ground rules here. Capitalism is not the salvation of the human race. If unregulated by some disciplined force (the government, a religious or ethical organization, social consciousness or other extraneous factors) it tends toward exploitative, short-sighted policies that destroy the very society it is supposedly benefiting. This post will keep away from uncritical praise of Capitalism.
Capitalism is also not the source of all evil, or even most modern evil. The first human who picked up a rock and smashed in his neighbor's head was not a Capitalist, he was a human. The first human to steal her neighbor's yucca roots (I'm really stretching for a paleo food here, any help?) was not a Capitalist, but a human. Capitalism does not have to be an exploitative force, even if it often is.
What, then, is a Capitalist? What is Capitalism? Capitalism uses the gathered surplus of society (defined by Patricia Crone in Pre-Industrial Societies as anything left over after basic needs such as food, shelter and security have been met) to begin new ventures. It began when aristocratic landowners began handing out charters for cities on their land. In return for a yearly payment, the city could engage in trade on ships or by land while being supplied with food from nearby farms. Some humans no longer had to struggle every day just to eat. Now, they could launch business ventures. When those new ventures earned money, a small portion went to the original holders of the land's surplus. This early porto-capitalism became Capitalism when the surplus was used to create machine-powered ventures that returned enormous profits versus the human labor and skill required during the Industrial Revolution.
Capitalism, then, does not require corporations, CEOs, monopolies, or many of the other modern embellishments that are so often railed against. All it is is a method of utilizing money (surplus) to create more money (more surplus). This post is not asking whether Christians should be CEOs, or own corporations, or lobby for monopolies. It is asking whether Christians should place money in the hands of a business venture and then utilize the profit.
A final ground rule: I am referencing Christians since this is my own personal religious tradition. Jews may find similar ideas in the rabbinic tradition (my primary argument, after all, comes from a heretical Jewish rabbi). I believe there are some similar ideas in Buddhism, but I am not versed in that tradition or in several others. While I hope some of these principles can be applied outside of the Christian world, it remains to others to adopt them to other specific contexts.
Christians fall into one of two categories on the subject of Capitalism. They are either Christian Communists (the apostles, after all, shared all earthly positions in a common lottery) or they are Christian Capitalists so gung-ho on the power of the Market that they confuse it with the Resurrection. Neither, in my opinion, is correct. The Gung-ho Group, if you will, is easy to refute. Jesus, like most people with a conscience, called for the sacrificial feeding of the poor. There is no merit system that entitles you entrance into Heaven, and if there were it would not be based on the size of investment portfolios. The poor do not get what they deserve due to moral laxness (is there a bigger crook than Wall Street?) and if you doubt the Biblical derivation of this, read the entire book of Nahum and Hosea.
But a more upper-class Christianity is actually more likely to critique Capitalism, stating that since God does not see class or income differences, these should not feature as part of Christianity. The atrocities committed by capitalists (see: Banana Republics, the Cold War, arguably the Second World War, the way the recent Ebola crisis was handled, Donald Trump's presidency, etc) are taken as proof of Capitalism's moral shortcomings. "By their fruit shall ye know them," after all, and thus we are satisfied in condemning Capitalism.
This was my (educated, upper-middle-class, "liberal") opinion until a little while ago. Then I read Matthew 25:13-40. In the parable of the talents, three "servants" or slaves or employees or whatever you wish to call them are handed varying amounts of money by an absentee landowner/employer. Two of them go out and invest it with the "money changers," an ancient equivalent to a bank. They double their money by the time their owner returns. A third employee (see what I did there?) buries the money in a field. He has achieved precisely a 0% return (inflation was rather static at the time).
The villain of the parable is the third employee. And God is clearly the absentee employer. I would have expected the Bible to make some pseudo-liberal point about everyone getting different amounts of money and then equalizing them. Instead, God gives the third employee's money to the first and most successful employee. Jesus ends the parable with the chilling line, "For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them." Donald Trump could not make a more blatantly cold-blooded statement.
And yet, before the Christian Gung-ho Capitalists begin rejoicing, the same crazy rabbi says, "‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ This is precisely the opposite idea, namely that those who have nothing (to eat, drink, shelter in, etc) should be given to, voluntarily, sacrificially and without expecting a return or a reward. And these two ideas are placed together in the same long monologue (the end of the world also makes an appearance).
And before the somewhat educated start screaming about multiple sources, the historical Jesus and composite authorship of the Bible, let me remind you that I did not ask whether Jesus would be a Capitalist. I asked whether Christians should be, and Christians read these two passages together and believe both should instruct you about life. They have equal merit.
So which one will Jesus hate you for more? Refusing to earn a return or not feeding the poor? To further complicate things, Jesus also advises people to lose the world to save their souls. Oh, and he also says to"be in the world, but not of it," a confusing statement that has spawned everything from monasticism to colonialism to Mother Theresa. Or does he? The closest reference to that concept is in John 17, where Jesus states his disciples are not of the world as he is not of the world.
I propose a solution to Jesus' view on money. Jesus was clearly opposed to exploitation and profiting from evil (see: Jesus' wild temper tantrum in the Temple). Jesus was also opposed to keeping money under the mattress. Jesus has no notion of modern banking (despite alleged divinity, he was also 100% Hebrew peasant). Jesus was a skilled craftsman, an outlaw, a deity.
That, some will answer, is not a solution. But I think it is. Jesus was situated in a particular time and place, and he was not commenting on modern capitalism at all in any of his remarks, ever. He was not being prescient and he could not imagine the automobile, the iPhone or the internet. He was laying down some simple ground rules for life - no killing, no cheating, no stealing, be honest, have integrity, etc. Finding out how to do that is our responsibility, as disciples in the 21st Century.
Also, Jesus was a walking contradiction according to Christian theology. Is it possible to feed the poor with a sacrificial attitude, earn a decent return on investments and avoid exploiting the environment or other people? Absolutely, even if it is hard and requires a maximum of discipline. Is it also possible to feed the poor, abandon the modern monetary system and still wind up exploiting people in the form of disaster porn or feel good stories? Yes. So before we run around condemning Capitalism, or swearing by its beneficent effects, let us remember that morality, like politics, is local. Jesus could care less about what Nike is doing in Indonesia; He cares a lot more about what you are doing in Palo Alto to avoid exploiting people down the street. Conversely, if you happen to be a foreman in charge of a Nike plant in Indonesia, Jesus doesn't care about your opinions on undocumented labor in Palo Alto, he cares about exploited wage slaves at your plant.
I believe there is a place for the Christian investor to buy shares of a company and demand morality. I do not mean a specific stance on sexuality (since when did sexuality and morality mean the same thing?) I do not mean the culture wars or voting patterns or campaign donations. I mean demanding that a corporation ensure the fair treatment of its workers and the safety of its products before it hands back a return to you, the shareholder. I mean using the ultimate power of being a shareholder, directing the most powerful institutions on earth as a part-owner, to be a force for good. If you don't like how McDonald's treats its workers, buy of McDonald's stock and force it to change. Band together with other shareholders until you have a controlling interest, and then march into a board room and force your employees, the CEO and the other C-suite executives, to change the place. Fire them if you have to. You own the place, after all. Make the oil companies clean up after themselves. Force the power companies to stop polluting the air. Order the defense contractor to stop producing napalm bombs and full-body scanners. Stand up and demand that the Christian respect for life, encapsulated in the very Resurrection of Jesus Christ, be the hallmark of Christian-owned companies. Find some Jewish or Muslim or atheist or Buddhist people with similar values (the number of people who are appalled at violence approaches infinity, the number of sociopaths is less than 1%). Rise up, consciences of the world, and own a company. Change the world.
Furthermore, there are those who declare it as the end-all, be-all solution to life's problem. "The Market" is praised as a endless source of innovation that will, in some hitherto undiscovered way, create a panacea of affluent utopia. By overhyping Capitalism, its supporters have harmed it even more than the thoughtful critic (or the ridiculous banner-wavers).
So let's lay a few ground rules here. Capitalism is not the salvation of the human race. If unregulated by some disciplined force (the government, a religious or ethical organization, social consciousness or other extraneous factors) it tends toward exploitative, short-sighted policies that destroy the very society it is supposedly benefiting. This post will keep away from uncritical praise of Capitalism.
Capitalism is also not the source of all evil, or even most modern evil. The first human who picked up a rock and smashed in his neighbor's head was not a Capitalist, he was a human. The first human to steal her neighbor's yucca roots (I'm really stretching for a paleo food here, any help?) was not a Capitalist, but a human. Capitalism does not have to be an exploitative force, even if it often is.
What, then, is a Capitalist? What is Capitalism? Capitalism uses the gathered surplus of society (defined by Patricia Crone in Pre-Industrial Societies as anything left over after basic needs such as food, shelter and security have been met) to begin new ventures. It began when aristocratic landowners began handing out charters for cities on their land. In return for a yearly payment, the city could engage in trade on ships or by land while being supplied with food from nearby farms. Some humans no longer had to struggle every day just to eat. Now, they could launch business ventures. When those new ventures earned money, a small portion went to the original holders of the land's surplus. This early porto-capitalism became Capitalism when the surplus was used to create machine-powered ventures that returned enormous profits versus the human labor and skill required during the Industrial Revolution.
Capitalism, then, does not require corporations, CEOs, monopolies, or many of the other modern embellishments that are so often railed against. All it is is a method of utilizing money (surplus) to create more money (more surplus). This post is not asking whether Christians should be CEOs, or own corporations, or lobby for monopolies. It is asking whether Christians should place money in the hands of a business venture and then utilize the profit.
A final ground rule: I am referencing Christians since this is my own personal religious tradition. Jews may find similar ideas in the rabbinic tradition (my primary argument, after all, comes from a heretical Jewish rabbi). I believe there are some similar ideas in Buddhism, but I am not versed in that tradition or in several others. While I hope some of these principles can be applied outside of the Christian world, it remains to others to adopt them to other specific contexts.
Christians fall into one of two categories on the subject of Capitalism. They are either Christian Communists (the apostles, after all, shared all earthly positions in a common lottery) or they are Christian Capitalists so gung-ho on the power of the Market that they confuse it with the Resurrection. Neither, in my opinion, is correct. The Gung-ho Group, if you will, is easy to refute. Jesus, like most people with a conscience, called for the sacrificial feeding of the poor. There is no merit system that entitles you entrance into Heaven, and if there were it would not be based on the size of investment portfolios. The poor do not get what they deserve due to moral laxness (is there a bigger crook than Wall Street?) and if you doubt the Biblical derivation of this, read the entire book of Nahum and Hosea.
But a more upper-class Christianity is actually more likely to critique Capitalism, stating that since God does not see class or income differences, these should not feature as part of Christianity. The atrocities committed by capitalists (see: Banana Republics, the Cold War, arguably the Second World War, the way the recent Ebola crisis was handled, Donald Trump's presidency, etc) are taken as proof of Capitalism's moral shortcomings. "By their fruit shall ye know them," after all, and thus we are satisfied in condemning Capitalism.
This was my (educated, upper-middle-class, "liberal") opinion until a little while ago. Then I read Matthew 25:13-40. In the parable of the talents, three "servants" or slaves or employees or whatever you wish to call them are handed varying amounts of money by an absentee landowner/employer. Two of them go out and invest it with the "money changers," an ancient equivalent to a bank. They double their money by the time their owner returns. A third employee (see what I did there?) buries the money in a field. He has achieved precisely a 0% return (inflation was rather static at the time).
The villain of the parable is the third employee. And God is clearly the absentee employer. I would have expected the Bible to make some pseudo-liberal point about everyone getting different amounts of money and then equalizing them. Instead, God gives the third employee's money to the first and most successful employee. Jesus ends the parable with the chilling line, "For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them." Donald Trump could not make a more blatantly cold-blooded statement.
And yet, before the Christian Gung-ho Capitalists begin rejoicing, the same crazy rabbi says, "‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ This is precisely the opposite idea, namely that those who have nothing (to eat, drink, shelter in, etc) should be given to, voluntarily, sacrificially and without expecting a return or a reward. And these two ideas are placed together in the same long monologue (the end of the world also makes an appearance).
And before the somewhat educated start screaming about multiple sources, the historical Jesus and composite authorship of the Bible, let me remind you that I did not ask whether Jesus would be a Capitalist. I asked whether Christians should be, and Christians read these two passages together and believe both should instruct you about life. They have equal merit.
So which one will Jesus hate you for more? Refusing to earn a return or not feeding the poor? To further complicate things, Jesus also advises people to lose the world to save their souls. Oh, and he also says to"be in the world, but not of it," a confusing statement that has spawned everything from monasticism to colonialism to Mother Theresa. Or does he? The closest reference to that concept is in John 17, where Jesus states his disciples are not of the world as he is not of the world.
I propose a solution to Jesus' view on money. Jesus was clearly opposed to exploitation and profiting from evil (see: Jesus' wild temper tantrum in the Temple). Jesus was also opposed to keeping money under the mattress. Jesus has no notion of modern banking (despite alleged divinity, he was also 100% Hebrew peasant). Jesus was a skilled craftsman, an outlaw, a deity.
That, some will answer, is not a solution. But I think it is. Jesus was situated in a particular time and place, and he was not commenting on modern capitalism at all in any of his remarks, ever. He was not being prescient and he could not imagine the automobile, the iPhone or the internet. He was laying down some simple ground rules for life - no killing, no cheating, no stealing, be honest, have integrity, etc. Finding out how to do that is our responsibility, as disciples in the 21st Century.
Also, Jesus was a walking contradiction according to Christian theology. Is it possible to feed the poor with a sacrificial attitude, earn a decent return on investments and avoid exploiting the environment or other people? Absolutely, even if it is hard and requires a maximum of discipline. Is it also possible to feed the poor, abandon the modern monetary system and still wind up exploiting people in the form of disaster porn or feel good stories? Yes. So before we run around condemning Capitalism, or swearing by its beneficent effects, let us remember that morality, like politics, is local. Jesus could care less about what Nike is doing in Indonesia; He cares a lot more about what you are doing in Palo Alto to avoid exploiting people down the street. Conversely, if you happen to be a foreman in charge of a Nike plant in Indonesia, Jesus doesn't care about your opinions on undocumented labor in Palo Alto, he cares about exploited wage slaves at your plant.
I believe there is a place for the Christian investor to buy shares of a company and demand morality. I do not mean a specific stance on sexuality (since when did sexuality and morality mean the same thing?) I do not mean the culture wars or voting patterns or campaign donations. I mean demanding that a corporation ensure the fair treatment of its workers and the safety of its products before it hands back a return to you, the shareholder. I mean using the ultimate power of being a shareholder, directing the most powerful institutions on earth as a part-owner, to be a force for good. If you don't like how McDonald's treats its workers, buy of McDonald's stock and force it to change. Band together with other shareholders until you have a controlling interest, and then march into a board room and force your employees, the CEO and the other C-suite executives, to change the place. Fire them if you have to. You own the place, after all. Make the oil companies clean up after themselves. Force the power companies to stop polluting the air. Order the defense contractor to stop producing napalm bombs and full-body scanners. Stand up and demand that the Christian respect for life, encapsulated in the very Resurrection of Jesus Christ, be the hallmark of Christian-owned companies. Find some Jewish or Muslim or atheist or Buddhist people with similar values (the number of people who are appalled at violence approaches infinity, the number of sociopaths is less than 1%). Rise up, consciences of the world, and own a company. Change the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment