Greed as the basis of all evil
Once in a while I review my files, re-reading articles I've gleaned from the mass media. By divine coincidence I came upon an article entitled "Greed: The Mother of Sin", authored by Phyllis Pickle, then, in 2002, a Contributing Editor at Publishers Weekly. It relates directly to my recent posting re: Paul's contention that money is the root of all evil.
Subtitled "Many world religions say greed is the stuff other deadly sins are made of.", she references (the 2002) testimony by Alan Greenspan, then the head of the Federal Reserve Bank, as saying he believed "infectious greed" was the culprit in the (then) recent rash of corporate scandals. Some thought that the fact that Greenspan was "spanking businessmen for exhibiting greed" felt like some sort of betrayal. Afterall we'd been told that greed, properly regulated was good, for business and society as a whole, that we'd come to think of greed as being an ambigious quality; sometimes good and other times bad.
Ms. Tickle said that "the major religions had no such illusions about greed. Greed, say many of them, is not only unambiguous, it is the Mother of All Sins".
From the Hindu, we hear from Bhishma, son of the Ganges and one of Hinduism's great yogi's. "Covetousness alone is the great destroyer of merit and goodness. From covetousness proceeds sin. It is from this source that sin and irreligiousness flow, together with great misery. This covetousness is the spring also of all the cunning and hypocrisy in the world. It is covetousness that makes men sin...". Does this not remind you of Paul's declaration, and relate directly to the 10 commandments, "You shall not covet..."?
Buddhism similiarly speaks. In essence Buddhism is based on an abhorrence to the ways of desiring. The Visuddhimagga explicitly counsels, "Greed is the real dirt, not dust...The wise have shaken off this dirt, and in the dirt-free man's religion, live".
The Tao Teh Ching says, "There is no greater calamity than indulging in greed".
What I found most interesting, being a western child of Abraham, was the Jewish attitude. Ms. Tickle puts it this way. "Here, in the West, it is Judaism and, by declension, Christianity that has appointed greed as the matriarch of all other sins. Long before Sinai and the giving to Moses of the Law, there was Noah and the seven laws or mishpathim that are presented, one by one, incident by incident, in the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis. Known as the Seven Laws of Noah, they were the governing principles of Judaism before the Ten Commandments."
Here is what I find most fascinating, and illuminating. The author chronicles the order in which the laws were established. 1st is blasphemy, 2nd, idolatry, 3rd, theft, 4th, murder, 5th, illicit sex, 6th, false witness or duplicity in adjudication and 7th, the eating of flesh torn from a living beast. She says that over time many Rabbi's came to the conclusion that theft was the greatest, in that it all others originate. "To commit adultery is to steal another's spouse. To blaspheme is to steal the name of G-d for human purposes, to commit murder is to steal another's life, etc., etc. And theft comes out of greed. This idea-that greed is the source, not the substance, of sin-continues to inform Judasim."
She adds something that relates back to Buddhism. "Jesus of Nazareth, irregular rabbi that He was, erased the moral distinction between comitting an act and intending. He taught that desire itself is a sin, that the thought was enough. The early Christians shaped their evolving theology around this principle, but even in this new scheme of sin, the primacy of avarice (avaritia, which we translate somewhat inadequately as "the love of money") remained. Avaritia, the Apostle Paul warned is the root of all evil; and the early church took up his cry. The devout took to writing Paul's doctrine as an acrostic, making it a kind of cartoon about the corruption of Rome as well as a dictum: Radix (the root), Omnium (of all), Malorium (evils), Avaritia (avarice)." - ROMA. As the Buddhists declared, suppression of desire is the great need of man.
As we now have a volunteer to initiate the effort to create economic white paper, I urge us all to keep this moral perspective in mind as we develop a progressive Christian Theology of Social Responsibility. As Mr. Greenspan acknowledged "infectious greed" may be the basis of corporate scandals. I would not limit it to just corporatism. I would add, we, too, participate in the energy of greed, as we hope that capitalism and the banking system that finances it, and the stock market commodities that energies it, does well for us. As much of the capital of capitalism derives to some large extent on the exploitation of the labor of others, this makes all who actively participate, guilty of the Mother of All Sins. (Guilty as charged, your Honor!) :-)
Rich
- anElder's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Structures of Sin
A good place to begin understanding what Catholics mean by structures of sin is in the encyclicals of John Paul II, particularly Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, where he describes them as follows, (SRS:36): "...it is not out of place to speak of 'structures of sin,' which...are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior." Then, after considering the religious roots of these structures in the Ten Commandments, he continues, "This general analysis, which is religious in nature, can be supplemented by a number of particular considerations to demonstrate that among the actions and attitudes opposed to the will of God, the good of neighbor and the 'structures' created by them, two are very typical: on the one hand, the all-consuming desire for profit, and on the other, the thirst for power, with the intention of imposing one's will upon others. In order to characterize better each of these attitudes, one can add the expression: 'at any price.' In other words, we are faced with the absolutizing of human attitudes with all its possible consequences." He then demonstrates that sin is not limited to individuals, but that social units can sin by falling into mass idolatry: "Obviously, not only individuals fall victim to this double attitude of sin; nations and blocs can do so too. And this favors even more the introduction of the 'structures of sin' of which I have spoken. If certain forms of modern "imperialism" were considered in the light of these moral criteria, we would see that hidden behind certain decisions, apparently inspired only by economics or politics, are real forms of idolatry: of money, ideology, class, technology."
Perhaps this is enough for an introduction. What he clearly demonstrates is that sin is not simply personal, but can incorporate much larger social units. This being the case, my question is "If sin can be social, then should it not be repented of socially?" Is our current economic system simply being abused by sinful people or has it become a force for sin in itself, a kind of idolatry of greed and selfishness that will destroy our mother earth unless we can effectively, that is socially, oppose it?
Structures of Sin
A good place to begin understanding what Catholics mean by structures of sin is in the encyclicals of John Paul II, particularly Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, where he describes them as follows, (SRS:36): "...it is not out of place to speak of 'structures of sin,' which...are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior." Then, after considering the religious roots of these structures in the Ten Commandments, he continues, "This general analysis, which is religious in nature, can be supplemented by a number of particular considerations to demonstrate that among the actions and attitudes opposed to the will of God, the good of neighbor and the 'structures' created by them, two are very typical: on the one hand, the all-consuming desire for profit, and on the other, the thirst for power, with the intention of imposing one's will upon others. In order to characterize better each of these attitudes, one can add the expression: 'at any price.' In other words, we are faced with the absolutizing of human attitudes with all its possible consequences." He then demonstrates that sin is not limited to individuals, but that social units can sin by falling into mass idolatry: "Obviously, not only individuals fall victim to this double attitude of sin; nations and blocs can do so too. And this favors even more the introduction of the 'structures of sin' of which I have spoken. If certain forms of modern "imperialism" were considered in the light of these moral criteria, we would see that hidden behind certain decisions, apparently inspired only by economics or politics, are real forms of idolatry: of money, ideology, class, technology."
Perhaps this is enough for an introduction. What he clearly demonstrates is that sin is not simply personal, but can incorporate much larger social units. This being the case, my question is "If sin can be social, then should it not be repented of socially?" Is our current economic system simply being abused by sinful people or has it become a force for sin in itself, a kind of idolatry of greed and selfishness that will destroy our mother earth unless we can effectively, that is socially, oppose it?
Capitalism
"As much of the capital of capitalism derives to some large extent on the exploitation of the labor of others, this makes all who actively participate, guilty of the Mother of All Sins."
The use of the word "capitalism" points to a type of sin larger than the individual. As a Catholic, I believe in the Church teaching concerning "structures of sin", the idea that some types of sin may not be personal, but are the result of sinful social structures. For instance, we live in a society that thrives on the promotion of greed. The fact that few can resist this force lessens the individual sinfulness of those who surrender to it. Perhaps some types of sin being actively promoted at the social level need to be resisted at that level too. Should Christians then resist capitalism as such since it is inseparable from the promotion of greed?
Structures of sin? Please explain further.
Collinsbo,
OK, this is a new concept to me. Maybe you and Frank, being active Catholics, can provide the rest of us with a more indepth understanding of the whole concept. It appears to me, on 1st reading, that it may have great merit, especially as we are about the writing of an economic white paper.
Thank you for your contribution. Please continue!
Rich
"Structures of sin"
Rich,
I doubt if it's really a new concept to you. If you've used the phrase "institutional racism", then you understand what "structures of sin" are.
The Roman Catholic teaching tradition systematizes it neatly. The phrase comes up in the section of the Catechism called called "The Proliferation of Sin". It's the last of the 5 items in the section. To get the full force of it, here's the whole section:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Article 8 - SIN
The Proliferation of Sin
1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.
1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called "capital" because they engender other sins, other vices. They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.
1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.
1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."
---------
This view of sin starts from the individual and sees institutionalized sin as an historical product of the behaviors of individuals. This can mesh easily with a social science approach which starts from the other end and sees "patterns of culture" and institutions as taking on a life of their own. Individuals are born into social situations and institutions; their behavior is organized, mostly unconsciously, by the social/cultural situations in which they're raised. And then they adapt continuously as situations and institutions change. "Social sin" doesn't mean that the participants are giving free rein to their worst impulses. Instead, all they have to do is to conform themselves to things that are taken for granted as being "the way things are". If "the way things are" are really sinful, it's hard for the participants to discern it. It's so natural.
Things being what they are, the ways of the world are, indeed, sinful -- all systems have fallen short of the mark.
That's where the Good News is supposed to come in.
Bill
Structures of Sin
Though you are accurate in depicting the Catholic view of "structures of sin" according to the Catechism, there is a more profound critique that lays behind the phrase which is embodied in many current Church documents, one of which was referenced above. For instance, we find the following paragraph in the Medillin documents produced during a conference of Latin American bishops in 1968: "The system of liberal capitalism and the temptation of the Marxist system would appear to exhaust the possibilities of transforming the economic structures of our continent. Both systems militate against the dignity of the human person. One takes for granted the primacy of
capital, its power and its discriminatory utilization in the function of profit-making. The other, although it ideologically supports a kind of humanism, is more concerned with collective man, and in practice be-comes a totalitarian concentration of state power. We must denounce the fact that Latin America sees itself caught between these two options and remains dependent on one or other of the centers of power which control its economy." This teaching has been maintained by the current pope and his predecessor, both of whom make profound critiques of the modern economy which embodies the structures of sin referred to by John Paul II.
Great quote, Bo
Thanks for the quote from the Medillin conference documents. It's another good example of what I feel are the best tendencies of the Roman Catholic Church.
Very strong stuff to deal with, indeed, for defenders of capitalism.
By the way, in your comment titled "Catholic Critique of Capitalism", currently eight posts below this one, you began with "I strongly agree with Frank's comments." That doesn't seem to fit the context.
What''s the source for your quote: "As much of the capital of capitalism derives to some large extent on the exploitation of the labor of others, this makes all who actively participate, guilty of the Mother of All Sins."? I like the sentiment, if not the precise wording.
And I answer your question "Should Christians then resist capitalism as such since it is inseparable from the promotion of greed?" in the affirmative.
Bill
Resisting Capitalism
Thanks for the correction. My post "Catholic Critique of Capitalism" was intended as a reply and affirmation of wpeltz's strong post "Capitalism: A No to your No", not Frank, which I mistook because of the beginning of the post. However, the quote I made is from the posting itself - it's the last line of the posting. Thanks for the affirmation of the anti-capitalist sentiment. Essentially, I'd like to see an economy that promoted caring for others (solidarity in JPII's lingo) rather than maximizing personal wealth. It's difficult for me to understand why this is not considered a traditional Christian position. The theory that pursuing one's own maximum profit brings prosperity to all seems absurd in the light of practical experience of the past 20 years. If you would like more extended commentary on this from a long time student of Catholic social teaching, go to http://nonviolentjesus.blogspot.com
re:Resisiting Capitalism
Thanks for referring us to the blog nonviolent Jesus. It has a lot of good stuff written in it.
I think we all want an economy that focuses more on caring for others than on maximizing profit. The capitalist system has a lot of flaws. But when I look at the alternatives that have been tried, in the former Soviet Union, in China, in North Korea, in Vietnam, and elsewhere, I still think capitalism is a better economic system with all its flaws. That's why I was so interested in Bill's post about alternatives to both capitalism and state run socialism.
I personally think capitalism is a neutral system, with its benefits and flaws. Adam Smith wrote that individuals who pursue their self interests in a competitive system often inadvertantly create widespread social gains. In the 19th Century, the Industrial Revolution created a middle class of over 100 million people in the U.S. Free market reforms in the 1970s have given China a middle class of over 200 million people today. India has now a middle class of 200 million people due to its free markets. I compare this with the 5 year plans and great leaps forward efforts of the former Soviet Union, Mao's China, Vietnam's and North Korea's efforts at collectivization in the 1980s; it's basically resulted in famine, poverty and the death of millions. Capitalism seems to have done a better job of lifting larger numbers of people out of poverty than the communist and socialist systems have.
The flaws of capitalism and unfettered free markets though are there as well. With the millions who benefit from the opportunities of the free markets, there are millions who are left behind through no fault of their own, unable to adjust to the fast pace of change and trapped in poverty. Those in the margins are often exploited for their cheap labor, and they are denied opportunities that the middle and upper classes have. The rush for industries to exploit the natural resources leads to the degradation of the environment and enormous pollution problems. The pursuit of profit and economic gain leads to gross materialism and self centeredness. Increased competition leads to some winning out over others, and wealth and the power that comes with wealth becomes concentrated into fewer people. An economic system of self interest can tolerate slavery, segregation, environmental destruction, war.
What should we do? Some, like Frank and I, think government can reform capitalism of its flaws. Some think the flaws in capitalism are too large for government to be anything except a band-aid and that another system is needed. The economic alternatives that Bill mentioned seem to want to diffuse power more into the workers and employees, to take away the hierarchical aspects of the current economy, to form smaller units rather than larger burachratical government programs like the New Deal. Among the things he mentioned is a Catholic economic alternative like the Catholic Worker farms. I don't like Hugo Chavez, but I do like his idea of organizing workers and farmers into groups to empower them and include them into the decision making process.
These alternatives that Bill spelled out sounds great, but they need to be tried out, to see what only sounds good on paper and what actually works. In communist systems, the push to redistribute wealth and create a classless society seem to always come hand in hand with a loss of civil liberties, a loss in accountability and corrupt government. Maybe these new post capitalist models, with an emphasis on smaller groups and a diffusion of power, would avoid those flaws. I don't know. To create an economy that's based more on helping others rather than of self interest, I think we should look to history and the learn from past attempts to create such a system.
Learning from History
Thanks for your thoughtful and well-reasoned reply. I agree wholeheartedly that we should learn from history, but I'd like to focus on the last 20 years and see what lessons we can derive from that rather than entering into a debate on the last 2 centuries. Without getting into semantic battles over concepts such as "capitalism" and "socialism", I'd like to simply look at the global economic system which has dominated over the last 20 years. My first question is "What kinds of human behavior does this system encourage?" Advertisements play a central role in this system and what is the message constantly blared from virtually all advertisements? It is this: "You the consumer are inadequate because you lack this never-before-seen incredible product. Once you get it you will be completely fulfilled." The attitude which is constantly instilled is that only through the purchase of material goods or services can you obtain happiness. The corollary is that you must do whatever is necessary to gain the means to purchase these goods or else you will remain miserable. This does not seem to me to be a "flaw" of this system, but part of its essential drive. The media, which is controlled by these advertisers, amplifies this message through both its news programs and entertainment shows. The attitude instilled is that each of us must compete with each other to obtain the goods that make for happiness. Each of us is a buyer and a seller in the global marketplace and therefore each of us must strive to maximize our advantage vis-a-vis our competitors. We may form temporary alliances to compete with other alliances, but ultimately we must focus on maximizing our sales price and minimizing our buy price. Clearly, this attitude militates against any solidarity on the economic plane whether with fellow Christians or anyone else. Thus the influence of the economic system is toward anti-social behavior and this appears to be an inherent part of what makes the economy "successful", not an abuse.
As heirs of the Acts of the Apostles, is is not possible to imagine an alternative economic system that would cause me to seek benefits in ways that benefit others too, rather than opposing my interest to their interest?
re:Learning from History
I agree with most of your comments, Collinsbo. I love history, and think we can learn a lot from studying it, but you're right that the last 20 years has its own lessons for us. I think Bill has offered a few alternative economic systems that attempt to seek cooperation and individuals acting on behalf of others, especially a third alternative economic system by Catholic thinkers. Some of the economic systems that he suggests may fit more in line with what your looking for as an economic system with more Christian and humane values.
I guess my thought is can the self interest that is in the heart of capitalism be tamed or directed towards more unselfish purposes? Instead of replacing capitalism, is there a way to reform its more selfish impulses?
No
Capitalism is not the problem. In fact, it has caused a lot of good in the world. What is bad is the abuse of capitalism by buccaneer laissez-faire types.
The answer is a return to a New Deal dynamic, one where a sturdy popular government balances the potential excesses of business. We liberals need to openly embrace capitalism to make it fair enough to give opportunity to everyone.
Capitalism: A "No" to your "No"
Frank, I have to say that I think capitalism is the problem. (However, I'm not sure that "capitalism", like "communism" isn't a mythical construct that doesn't describe any actual, functioning economic system.)
"Causing a lot of good in the world" can be matched by "causing a lot of bad in the world". Since the balance of good and bad shifts over time, arguments over the relative efficacy of any system can easily become outdated, sooner or later. "Capitalism" might be judged quite differently from a post-Global Warmth, post-Peak Oil perspective, if and when those conditions fully come to pass.
Citing "buccaneer laisse-faire types" as the problem serves to shunt aside any considerations of what might be inherent institutional, moral, and ideological problems.
The fact that you refer to "the potential excesses of business" suggests to me that the excesses could be inherent in the way business is structured and the way business is being done. The nature of "business", according to Adam Smith, is to conspire against the public in order to produce private wealth:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." (The Wealth of Nations)
The present size and scope of business goes way beyond the conversations and conspiracies that Smith knew.
My conclusion is that "capitalism", particularly the global corporate kind that we have now, which some call "hypercapitalism", is an example of a Structure of Evil. The basis of the system is to prioritize Money over every other value. I think it's not going too far to call that Idolatry.
Roman Catholic social teaching is similarly critical of capitalism and capitalist ideology. Catholic Social Teaching, as set forth by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, seems far from compatible with the corporate world. Just listing the 7 key themes indicates the scope of the mismatch: Sanctity of human life and dignity of the person; Call to family, community, and participation; Rights and responsibilities; Preferential Option for the poor and vulnerable; Dignity of work and the rights of workers; Solidarity; Care for God's creation.
None of that fits with the Bottom-Line Culture. And corporations keep getting bigger: Mergers & Acquisitions continue to create greater concentrations of power. Thus, I find it hard to see how we can make capitalism "fair enough to give opportunity to everyone". What's sturdy is the connection between business corporations and government. Popular government -- or left-populist government -- is a project that's hardly more than a sickly seedling at this point. I don't think we can nourish it with praises of capitalism. We need something more participatory. Interesting things are happening in 'worker self-management' in Argentina, for instance. Wikipedia has a decent introductory article on the subject.
Bill
Sorry Bill, No Dice
As for a Catholic way to do capitalism, go here(i) and click on the two part links to A Living Wage as well the link to Bishops' Plan for Reconstruction.
This is a Catholic view of capitalism, despite what knuckleheads such as Robert Sirico or Michael Novak may claim. Ryan borrowed quite a bit from Socialism, but he clearly understood (as Niebuhr came to understand) that purer variants of of Socialism also result in arbitrary power.
By the way Bill, it was St. Thomas Aquinas who observed that wealth is neutral; it is what one does with wealth that is either virtuous or evil.
(i) If hyperlink does not work, click: http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/cst/aboutus/ryaninfo.html
No dice?
I think it's Capitalism that's been rolling the dice, upping its bets, crapping out from time to time (as in "recessions" and "depressions"), and heading for a time when it will bet everything it has and, finally, not make the point, thus losing it's control of the dice.
Yes, Frank, Msgr. Ryan and the 1919 Bishops Plan for Reconstruction are a Catholic way to capitalism, but do they trump the Catechism? Or Pope John Paul II on "the all-consuming desire for profit" and "the thirst for power"?
The 1919 Bishops Plan and the writings of Msgr. Ryan, who died in 1945, were reasonable and great liberal stuff in their time. Ryan's 1909 legislative "wish list" and his emphasis on the personal natural right to a "living wage" are exemplary. And some of it is still unrealized, including public ownership of utilities, mines, and forests. And some it has been weakened and compromised: protection for union picketing and boycotting, control of monopolies. Since his time, corporate hypercapitalism has changed the world and sharpened the issues -- and exposed the "contradictions" in a harsher light. The many condemnations of wealth contained in the Bible, including the Gospels, are more relevant than ever.
Re: Aquinas: Right. And that's in accord with the discussions we've been having about Greed/Avarice: the point of the saying in 1 Timothy is that it's the love of money, not money itself, that is the root or a root of evil, evils, all evils, these evils, whatever. So in this context I'm not arguing against money or having money. I'd like to have a bit more of it, myself. I'd like to have a lot more, too, so that I could financially support all the projects I like.
But did St. Thomas Aquinas, in his observations, present a convincing interpretation of Matthew 19's "it is easier for a camel [rope or cable, actually] to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"? That line seems to offer little hope for the rich. One possible out is for the rich man or woman to give it all away. That was the problem for "the rich young ruler" -- he loved his wealth too much to abandon it in wanton philanthropy. That suggests that it's the love of money that keeps the wealthy folks wealthy. Honestly earned wealth, then, would be o.k., but keeping it isn't o.k. -- keeping it is a dead giveaway that Money-Love is one's ruling principle: it's Lazarus and Dives Redux.
That points us back to the Redistributionist ethic of the laws of the Jubilee system as the underlying design principle for a just society (which can be embodied in a variety of institutional forms).
But the Jubilee ethic is deeply contrary to the Capitalist way of life. Capitalism, at least in the form we know, is built on the love of money. That's not necessarily true of sole proprietorship "Mom and Pop" capitalism. At that scale, many other motives can come into play -- business is just a way of making a living, not of serving Mammon. But the fictional corporate person -- the legal person-in-the-abstract, so to speak -- lives only for Mammon.
One of the things that corporations do with money is build political power. And media power, with all that that implies about propaganda, spin, and propagating "memes" that define or "frame" social realities. In other words, social psychological conditioning that supports the Corporate Way.
And so we wind up with the twin evils of love of money and love of power. Link them institutionally through the revolving doors of government and corporations and lobbyists -- and what do we get? Something that doesn't look like it's congruent with Catholic social teaching, as I see it. And something that's not easy to reconfigure via a purified capitalism.
Speaking of Msgr. Ryan, I have vague memories of him from the late 30s and early 40s. I was generally aware of the rantings of Father Coughlin against Roosevelt and the New Deal -- it's something my father talked about. And a little later I became aware of Msgr. Ryan as one of Coughlin's antagonists and as a prominent advocate for social reforms.
Whereas Msgr. Ryan argued against socialists' materialist philosophy, while basically agreeing with socialists' economic and political analyses and supporting extensive government intervention in the economy, now there are other types of economic models and proposals that challenge both capitalism and state-centered socialism. He might have found that worth pursuing.
Bill
What are the other models beside capitalism and socialism?
Hi Bill, you wrote an interesting point when you said that there are now other types of economic models besides capitalism and state-centered socialism. I'd be curious to read about them and see if they would not rely on the greed factor. You also wrote that you're taking a class on Participatory Economics offered by Z Magazine/Z Net, and theories of post-capitalist economics and society. Let us know what you learn.
In search of alternative models
In addition to Participatory Economics/Parecon, there are other ideas and labels, some old and some new, that cover a lot of different approaches to post-capitalism. Some of them present themselves as forms of capitalism and others as forms of socialism. And others chuck both labels. Some are market-oriented. Others aren't. Parecon rejects markets in favor of "participatory planning", whose rationale and workings are a little too complicated to go into right off the bat.
Some of the older labels are democratic socialism, Libertarian socialism - which also covers various anarchisms: anarcho-syndicalism, anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, council communism. Social ecology is more recent, as are Economic Democracy, (Democratic) Cooperative Capitalism, Natural Capitalism, and Libertarian municipalism (in which direct democratic assemblies would replace the state with a network of confederated municipalities).
Then there's the Roman Catholic line of thought called Distributionism/Distributism/Distrbutivism, a kind of "third way" that's oriented towards cooperatives whereby most people will become owners of productive property. The Catholic Workers Movement sort of fits in here, as does E.F. Schumacher of "Small is Beautiful" fame and some worker cooperative movements in Spain and Italy. Related to those cooperatives and to Distributionism is the rather more capitalist Binary Economics which bore fruit in the ESOPS - the Employee Stock Ownership Plans that began in the 1970s (which Senator Mike Gravel was involved with).
Noam Chomsky is an example of a libertarian socialist. Parecon seems a lot like council communism: producers and consumers councils operate at each geographic level - neighborhood, ward, municipal, regional, national. The networking theme is shared with Libertarian municipalism and with other anarchistic/acephalous approaches.
A useful start might be Wikipedia's articles on Economic Democracy and Participatory Economics
Key ideas are decision-making by "stakeholders" rather than by "shareholders". Stakeholders include workers, consumers, suppliers, communities where an enterprise operates or impacts the social and physical environments -- all those who affect or can be affected by an enterprise's actions. That's in contrast to shareholders, the small minority who theoretically make the decisions by virtue of the rights that go with stock ownership. Or, more realistically, of the even smaller minority of shareholders who are executives and board directors and who tend to function as self-perpetuating and self-rewarding insiders.
Basically, what's being presented in these articles are varieties of anarchism -- not the absence of order, but the absence of a center or head, and the elimination or flattening of hierarchies. In general, organization is in the form of acephalous networks. "Rhizome" is an analogy I like (you could look it up).
Features include old ideas like worker self-managed enterprises, worker cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, worker and consumer councils, "fair trade", "social credit", and local and regional currencies, and some new ideas like "balanced job complexes", remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and the elaborate participatory planning process that Parecon envisions as a replacement for markets -- in contrast with the free markets that are posited by some Economic Democracy theorists.
Ithaca NY has what I think is the largest local currency system, called Ithaca Hours:
"Ithaca Hours help to keep money local, building the Ithaca economy....
Over 900 participants publicly accept Ithaca HOURS for goods and services.
Additionally some local employers and employees have agreed to pay or
receive partial wages in Ithaca Hours, further continuing our goal of keeping
money local."
Of course, how to get from here to there is another issue. I suspect that experiments in post-capitalist organization will occur as they have in the past -- in response to local and regional crises, breakdowns, and collapses. Argentina provides an example: after economic and political collapse in 2001, with factories shutting down, workers started taking over their idled factories. Worker and neighborhood assemblies were started and they sent delegates to higher-level assemblies. Many of the "recuperated factories" are still being run by workers councils, but they seem to be having a harder and harder time of it.
There have been many similar movements around the world in the last couple of centuries and they die out because they lack critical mass in a hostile environment. The Spanish Civil War and Tito's Yugoslavia are examples of broad worker self-management movements that eventually fizzled. Another Great Depression, "peak oil", water wars, food supply and population disruptions caused by climate change, and other problems that overtax the corporate capitalist system's ability to adapt, are likely to lead either to generalized chaos or eventually to new social adaptations that might use some of the current ideas about post-capitalism.
It's not a smiley-face prospect.
Bill
re:alternatie models
Thanks Bill on all this information. I'm fairly close to Frank's position in that I think that capitalism has many benefits, but also has inherent flaws that only a New Deal type government can alleviate. But I'm open to hearing about alternatives. Most of the alternative models that you mentioned seemed to want to move away from a more hierarchical version of capitalism and the tendency within capitalism to centralized wealth and power in a few hands or within corporations. I was going to ask about Peter Maurin's experiments with Catholic Worker farms and Israel's kibbutz system that was mentioned a few months ago and whether they would signify an alternative.
In my work in Sunnyvale, California, the city has experimented with Self Directed Work teams, where employees take turns for a year to be head of their department and the major decisions are from the group. It worked well in some city units, not so well in others. It was started during the 1990s, and I'm not sure whether it was influenced by Clinton's efforts to reinvent government.
I think these sound like great ideas, but they need to be tried out to see what works and what doesn't. What I liked about the New Deal and Great Society was the spirit of experimentation, the willingness to try out new ideas and see what works and what doesn't.
You wrote about "old ideas like worker self-managed enterprises, worker cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, worker and consumer councils, "fair trade", "social credit", and local and regional currencies, and some new ideas like "balanced job complexes", remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and the elaborate participatory planning process that Parecon envisions as a replacement for markets -- in contrast with the free markets that are posited by some Economic Democracy theorists." From what has been tried, have you learned from your classes what has worked and what some potential pitfalls might be?
No Dice -- Still
Bill, you say:
I take that passage not as a refutation of wealth, but instead one making us aware of the danger of putting wealth before God. As Aquinas said, "Everything in moderation."
Wealth is fine, but if God asks you to make a choice between Him and wealth and you balk, that's when you run into a problem.
Another roll of the same dice
Frank, I think you all but made my point for me when you wrote that the problem occurs when one balks at the choice between God and wealth.
The Aquinas thing, and Matthew 19, are digressions which are worth discussing, as I think Aquinas is less neutral than you've indicated. But for the moment, let's go back to the point I've been rolling the dice to make.
As I see it, the issue is simply that, by its very nature, a publicly traded corporation can't conform to the standards you've laid out. It can't pursue wealth "in moderation" and must put wealth before God.
There's no way it can accept the possibility of even considering that there may be a choice between God and wealth. It's wealth all the way. The same goes for its human stewards-servants-enablers whenever they're acting in their corporate roles. After all, they can get sued for not seeking to maximize "shareholder value". Thus they must either quit their posts or wind up as elements in one of those "structures of sin" that are described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (paragraph 1869).
Or do you see the publicly traded business corporation in a different light?
Bill
Catholic Critique of Capitalism
I strongly agree with Frank's comments. In fact, I think he said what I was trying to say better than I could say it. If you take a look at John Paul II's encyclical excerpts above, the pope comes very close to equating the current economic system with idolatry, an idolatry practiced by spiritual evil in high places. The system in which we currently live operates by encouraging more and more greed for its products. This is not an abuse due to a few buccaneer laisse-faire types, but is the lifeblood of the system. Part of the rules by which it lives is that those who are best at gaining short term advantage over their competitors by unprincipled exploitation of natural resources will usually thrive and eliminate those competitors. This is of the very nature of competition for profit. It also appears to me to be essentially opposed to traditional Christian values such as those promoted by the bishops. Christian values, and religious values in general, as the article above shows so well, promote self-control, restraint of greed, putting others' needs ahead of one's own interests, and strict adherence to truth. The more we follow Jesus, the more these values become part of our core, not the values of Wall Street.
Rerum Novarum and Social Gospels
Thanks Frank, Bill and Collinsbo for giving new information for us to learn about. I haven't heard of Monsignor Ryan before, or the influence he had on FDR and the New Deal.
I think any Crossleft discussion on a Christian response to the economy and greed should always include the Catholic Social Thinking and the Protestant Social Gospels. It's good that Frank, Bill and Collinsbo are giving information on the encyclicals. I hope someone gives a good post on the Social Gospels. I remember someone writing a post a few months ago on that.
There have been some very good critiques of capitalism in the papal encyclicals, from Rerum Novarum (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm), to Pope Paul VIs encyclical Populorum Progressio (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6develo.htm), to John Paul IIs encyclical Laborem Exercens (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_.... ). They really influenced my views on the economy when I read them as a young man. Bill and Frank are debating about the encyclicals and capitalism. Both have made good insights about Catholic Social Thinking. I think Rerum Novarum wants only to reform capitalism, but I think the later encyclicals of Paul VI and John Paul II are more critical. I'm not sure if they're saying that capitalism is the problem, as Bill is saying, but both Popes are very critical of aspects of the free markets.
Populorum Progressio stated: "But it is unfortunate that on these new conditions of society a system has been constructed which considers profit as the key motive for economic progress, competition as the supreme law of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right that has no limits and carries no corresponding social obligation. This unchecked liberalism leads to dictatorship rightly denounced by Pius XI as producing 'the international imperialism of money'. One cannot condemn such abuses too strongly by solemnly recalling once again that the economy is at the service of man. But if it is true that a type of capitalism has been the source of excessive suffering, injustices and fratricidal conflicts whose effects still persist, it would also be wrong to attribute to industrialization itself evils that belong to the woeful system which accompanied it. On the contrary one must recognize in all justice the irreplaceable contribution made by the organization of labor and of industry to what development has accomplished. "
Laborem Exercens states: ""We are celebrating the ninetieth anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum on the eve of new developments in technological, economic and political conditions which, according to many experts, will influence the world of work and production no less than the industrial revolution of the last century. There are many factors of a general nature: the widespread introduction of automation into many spheres of production, the increase in the cost of energy and raw materials, the growing realization that the heritage of nature is limited and that it is being intolerably polluted, and the emergence on the political scene of peoples who, after centuries of subjection, are demanding their rightful place among the nations and in international decision-making. These new conditions and demands will require a reordering and adjustment of the structures of the modern economy and of the distribution of work. Unfortunately, for millions of skilled workers these changes may perhaps mean unemployment, at least for a time, or the need for retraining. They will very probably involve a reduction or a less rapid increase in material well-being for the more developed countries. But they can also bring relief and hope to the millions who today live in conditions of shameful and unworthy poverty."
Bull's Eye Angelo!
Rerum Novarum is the root of Monsignor Ryan's work. In fact, during a 1932 campaign stop in Detroit, FDR alluded to its importance.
A level playing field?
Frank,
I agree with your sentiments. Capitalism has, for the most part, served us well. It's the behind the scenes manipulation of the process by the power elite that underminds the whole process.
BTW Liz and I spent July 4th in the Shenandoah Nat'l Park, saw 1st hand the work of the CCC "boys", as they were called. Much needed repairs are in order. Let's put some of these our city kids to work in the great outdoors, would do them a world of good.
Rich
Yes
As in "yes, I completely agree." Well and it looks cool on the topic list on the front door to have a "No" then a "Yes", people will wonder what we're arguing over.
My question, though, is HOW?
Do we ramp up the WPA and contract the agency rather than a public contractor? How about the CCC to clean up the mall in DC, I read the other day that the work needed there will run into the millions.
I agree most enthusiastically with the concept, but I can't visualize the reality.
Reply to The Janet
For starters, my comment above, 'Sorry Bill, No Dice."
Modern Day CCC's
This is in reply to Rich’s and Janet’s post. This is not going to be a politically correct reply for a progressive website, so go ahead and give it to me, if you like, but it is what really happened. I was a Forest Fire Officer for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources back in the eighties. This is roughly the state job equivalent of the more commonly known Federal Forest Ranger. We had a program for unemployed and disadvantaged youth 18 to 21. We were going to repair and build foot bridges in an area of Michigan’s State Forest system. First we had to be inclusive for race and gender. We recruited from the local community, which was from the country and small towns nearby. We had African Americans but no Latinos. There were just very few Latinos in this particular area. So I had to fill out a half a dozen forms explaining why we had no Latinos. We had two women on an 8 person crew. There weren’t a lot of women willing to work with a bunch of guys in the woods all day, so a lot of money was spent advertising and cajoling and encouraging to get a couple of women for the crew and neither woman had any carpentry skills. Yes, I know there are some women with carpentry skills that can swing a hammer all day with the boys, we just couldn’t find any, even in a rural area. Because of the presence of women we had to monitor constantly for sexual harassment and discrimination and prevent any possibility of hanky panky out in the woods. There was some friction between the African Americans and the whites, so that had to be monitored for any racial problems. We were ORDERED to make a woman or a minority the crew leader. We made one of the women who even though she had poor carpentry skills the leader. She was very literate though and actually the best one to fill out all the complicated government forms. The fellows who did have carpentry skills, though, resented having a supervisor who had none. They couldn’t have done the paperwork though. The whole crew had to be closely observed for drug use on the job. Most of the crew had poor work skills, unlike the CCC boys who had work skills and no place to work. Being late for work and not calling in sick was a constant problem. Most of the crew was close to be fired for the whole contract. A few of them were not fit enough to work a full 8 hour day at first. It took them a month before they had the stamina to work all day. I suspect the situation today would be even worse.
We built or repaired about a half a dozen bridges throughout an 8 week period. As far as the taxpayer getting something for his buck, we would have saved a lot of money hiring a couple of contract carpenters who could have did the whole job in a week maybe, two at the most. It took enormous energy from full time staff to supervise and teach. Our full time duties were often neglected. Did the kids learn something? Yes they did. Did they gain some work skills that might provide for employability in the future? Yes. So, the modern day CCC would be a very mixed bag.
I would very much advocate city kids working in their own environments, cleaning up their own neighborhoods, etc. They could also fix up and repair public structures and areas in their own towns. If you start getting into transporting city kids to the country and providing housing and keeping it drug free, free from sexual harassment and hanky panky, dealing with racial divides, as well as providing a learning environment, a modern day CCC wouldn’t work as it did back in the thirties. We would have to have a new millennia version. There is lots of work in the city as Janet pointed out. There is plenty of unemployment in rural areas, let the Forest Service and similar state and country outfits hire locally. We have plenty of Native Americans and more Latinos in rural areas now for racial diversity. Let everyone in these programs go home at night, keep it all local, housing would be a nightmare. That is one guy’s opinion.
The "CCC boys"
Jim,
Alas what you write seems to be so true, too true. I just read an article in today's NY Times about several teenagers who, looking for a place to spend some good old fashioned outdoor Summer fun, decided on their own to build a whiffle ball field on public land in Greewwich, Conn. They cleared the field of poison ivy, put up a backstop, complete with an American flag, invested about $200 of their own money and got a huge backlash from neighbors complaining about the noise, that the land they cleard was for drainage prevention, that they did it w/o a permit, yada, yada, yada.
My God what has gotten into the adults of this nation when good old fashioned kid gumption can be trumped by selfish adults who value their piece and quiet over encouraging our already well known overweight kids to do something of real value? Yes, I have a 14 yr. next door who likes loud music but his mother puts wise limits on it. He likes anything motorized, is good at small engine repair and often listens to what I have to say. To our adults I say, get to know your teenage neighbors, encourage them to be good citizens by just saying "Hey, could you cut the noise down a bit?. Thanx" They usually get the message and if they have responsible parents like Cody has you can get along just fine. Reward initiative, not punish it.
I hear your complaints about the huge pile of paper work. Yes, sadly creating a new CCC might be a real paper work nightmare. 'Course that might just better train a new generation to handle the paper work madness. Hey, new employment opportunities of the mental kind. Gotta sharpen those young minds somehow. Not all mountains are made of rock and soil, some are made of paper! I know I was one of them paper dang pushers back in the 70's! Motivated me to get out of public service real quick!
Rich
Thanks Rich
There is still hope though. I bet some wise heads could put together a public works project for our age, geared to modern problems, that is cost effective, accomplishes needed work and provides good job training.
I started thinking about my post after I wrote it and remembered that the young lady that we promoted to supervisor was pumped up enough to start taking some book keeping and accounting classes because she realized she could do it after her work experience. Also at least one of the young men got a job building docks part time and putting them in as a result of his work experience. So even though two contract carpenters could have did the job in two weeks and saved the tax payers money in the short run, in the long run the welfare cost savings to tax payers probably outpaced that savings. All is not gloom for the new generation
Greed
Thanks for the interesting blog Rich.I have thought a lot about greed and my identity as an American and a Christian.We are so consmer driven and "want" so much. We move from one "want" to the next, never satisfied and always wanting more.