Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:05:55 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Morality of Capitalism
 <1993Jan28.151120.13172@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>

In article <1993Jan28.151120.13172@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) says:

>The mostly free market developed from Judeo-Christian ethics.  It is
>a misnomer to call "Christian critics" Christian...but this
>is a recipe for a huge religious debate about the nature
>of Judeo-Christianity and Western Civilization.

Acceptance of usury a "Judeo-Christian" ethic?

Well, if you want a huge religious debate...

>Christianity is about spirituality first...all else including
>social justice is corollary or subsidiary to spirituality...
>the "Christian left" as you call them have basically adopted
>Marxist ethics, not Christian ones.

Lucky for all of us the monks at Lindisfarne didn't think that
way. If St. Columban et al. had simply sat and cultivated their
individual souls instead of bringing light and learning to the
continent of Europe, our civilisation (free markets and all)
might never have existed.

As for Marxist ethics versus Christian ethics, I have three things
to say: first, I agree with Gerald to this extent; that the
essay quoted simply attacks a straw dummy. However, I disagree with
him on two counts: first off, the charge that Christian leftists have
abandoned Christ for Marx, a depressingly familiar (and untrue) one.
More seriously, I do not accept his view of what Christians believe
as definitive.

>Love God with all your heart etc. etc. and love your neighbor
>AS YOURSELF...this is not a command for self-sacrifice...and
>love is not necessarily always altruistic.  The commandmant
>is a commandment for balance.

The word "balance" as a modern market society understands it (so
much for me, so much for them, all in measure) has little in
common with the drastic commitment demanded in the Sermon on
the Mount, or demonstrated on the Cross. Christianity demands
no less a commitment than our lives.

>Render unto Caesar etc. etc. emphasizes that Christianity is
>primarily about spirituality, and not about social justice.

Render unto Caesar emphasises no such thing. Render unto Caesar
emphasises the moral triviality of the state and all of its
works, including money and the "free market". As Jesus points
out, you can easily tell who invented (and profits from) money;
they put their picture on it and sign it.

>The parable of Mary and Martha...selfishness is not always wrong...
>or go back to the commandment...it includes self-love also...not
>just love of God and neighbor.  You've accepted that the arguments
>of the so-called "Christian-left" are legitimately Christian...
>they are not.

A nasty charge; and one you ought not to make. If you want to
claim our views do not accord with scripture, I can quote you
chapter and verse on the topic. But you have no business defining
what does and does not qualify as "legitimately Christian". I
accept the Christian right as "legitimately Christian", even
though I think they often misunderstand scripture.

>It is not Christian to say that selfishness is necessarily
>bad all the time, or that altruism is necessarily good all the
>time...

Here we go again. For the record, I have never condemned selfishness
as bad "all the time". My primary criticism of the ideology of
"free markets" rests on the idolatry of believing a social system
can in and of itself produce good, as in "the invisible hand".

But you have no right to pronounce on what constitutes "Christian"
behaviour or speech.

>A Christian renders unto Caesar...no matter what the system.
>Christians cannot blame others for the state of their soul...
>the world is never going to be free of temptations...the
>seven deadly sins are no more endemic to market capitalism
>or socialism.

Of course not. The spirit comes first. But you will admit that
Christians consider some social systems more in accordance with
Christian values than others. And Christians naturally want to
live in a society that reflects our values (for a Biblical reference,
consider the passage about not putting "stumbling blocks" in each
other's way).

>The criticisms of the so-called Christian left are mostly
>without merit...you've accepted their assertions about
>Christian ethics as valid...which is a highly debatable
>proposition.

The "so-called" offends. You have no warrant whatsoever for doubting my
Christianity, or Dan Berrigan's, or Bruce Cockburn's, or that of anyone
else I know. Nor have you made an impressive start in debating our
assertions about "Christian ethics".

>We are commanded to love ourselves as well as our neighbors and God.
>Christianity is about the individual...read Job or Ecclessiastes...
>the primary concern of Christianity is the state of one's own soul...
>that is as about as individualistic a philosophy as one can get.

If so, how did Christianity become a worldwide religion? How do
you explain the monasteries that kept learning alive, the Church's
provision for the poor, the radical sharing described in Praxis
Apostolian, the tithes, the Christian Children's Fund, the Primate's
World Relief and Development Funds, the Canadian Catholic Organisation
for Development and Peace, the food banks, the St. Vincent de Paul
Society...

You have a lot of people to put straight about the "true" nature of
Christianity.

In any case, consider the passage from the Gospels in which Jesus
says: "inasmuch as you did it to the least of these my brethren,
you did it to me".

By the way, I think you have Job wrong. It does not celebrate
individualism. In fact, it rebukes individualism by saying,
quite explicitly, that Job the individual has no rights against
God.

>It is not a sin to look out for one's own interests...in fact
>it is the primary Christian concern...the state of one's soul.

Christ explicitly warns us that the state of our souls will
depend, to a great extent, on what we have done for other people.
He does not command us to a "state" of altruism: he commands us to
care for the sick, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, visit
those in prison, and to do so even if the homeless, hungry, or
sick have abused us in the past.

>You've caught it backwards...human nature, and the family
>is a product of human nature, creates the society...not vice
>versa...democracy and markets in a complex technological
>society are a product of human nature, of the desire of
>human beings for spiritual fulfillment.  Democracy and markets
>are optimal structures given the conditions and scale of human
>existence as they are today.  The society which evolves is
>a product of human nature interacting with the world.

I dare you to prove that second last sentence. I dare you to
even tell me in what sense you use the word optimal. And how
DARE you call them optimal when, right now, people are freezing to
death in Toronto; when the Bank of Canada deliberately creates
unemployment; when peasant leaders in Guatemala have their children
killed in front of them to keep them from demolishing the system
that sends profits (and coffee) our way.

>The seven deadly sins are the seven deadly sins regardless of
>the economic system in place...

Leaving an unjust economic system in place smacks of sloth. Last
I looked, that ranked up there with gluttony and lechery. Oh, and
one other you may have heard about: avarice. An attitude of mind
many commercials seem to promote.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.theory