Capitalism is Not God’s Dream for Humanity

Capitalism is often deeply intertwined with the American’s idea of patriotism and Christianity, and for good reason. Capitalism, like the Christian life, encourages discipline. As seen through America’s rise as an economic super power over the past century, capitalism can give a man with a good work ethic the opportunity to move from rags to riches, achieving the American dream of full life, liberty, and happiness. In recent years, however, more Christians have questioned the negative affects of capitalism on humanity and whether American Christians should accept all capitalistic ideas as part of their worldview.

Like Victoria Van Vlear, who recently posted an article on Evangelical Outpost called Why You Should Listen to Communists, I believe we can learn more about capitalism and its limitations by studying the economic system that juxtaposes it: communism. Unlike Victoria, however, I am not surprised that communism’s founder, Karl Marx, was able to revolutionize entire countries with his theory. Marx was eccentric, yes. And there is no denying that communism has been used to oppress people in horrific ways. Yet Marx’s ideas point out some serious flaws in capitalism, flaws that we American Christians cannot ignore if we are to be responsible stewards of our possessions and love others well.

Therefore, I’d like to take a Marxist perspective on some of the harmful effects of capitalism. The problems capitalism creates, though different than those of socialism, can still be severe and debilitating. Capitalism creates vast wealth but also immense poverty. It provides jobs and products for consumption, but it also promotes alienation, overconsumption, and exploitation. Capitalism has brought us wealth, but this wealth might come at too great a price.

– Let’s begin with alienation. Marx tells us that capitalism alienates us from the purpose of our labor, because in a capitalistic society the worker ceases to labor out of his or her own will and volition and begins to labor to meet another person’s goal. In other words, most of us are working for The Man. According to Marx’s essay Alienated Labor, man differs from the animal inasmuch as he “makes his vital activity itself into an object of his will and consciousness.” Man creates through conscious, vital activity. As beings created in the image of the Creator, an essential part of our being must be to create and labor to bring our ideas into reality. In a capitalist society, however, we waive our right to labor for our own purposes, trading our labor for wages in order to fulfill the desires of another human being. In Alienated Labor, Marx goes on to argue that the result of this is “man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions…and feels himself an animal in his human functions.” In other words, when we sell our labor instead of experiencing the fruits of it ourselves, we can feel enslaved. Work can become the thing we do just to make money rather than a sacred opportunity to exercise our image-bearing quality of creativity. As a result of this shift in our understanding of labor, work becomes the place where we feel least human and least fulfilled, which entirely contradicts the intrinsic nature of labor as an expression of our purpose and humanness. In a capitalist society, our labor is only as valuable as the wage we are receiving. In a perfect society, however, our labor would do more to enhance human dignity: we would see the whole fruits of our labor rather than paper money equivalent to our labor.

– Next comes overconsumption, which is partially a result of alienation from labor. Because his work makes him feel like an animal, man looks to physical pleasure to help him feel more human. It is for this reason that Americans live for the weekend: we have sold our entire week to someone else, working in someone else’s office for someone else’s purpose, so that on the weekend (the only time that wholly belongs to us) we can live in excess for the final and exclusive end of experiencing pleasure and fulfillment. As man grasps at appetitive pleasures in search of purpose, capitalist society continuously uses advertising and stereotypes about economic status to suggest that consuming makes him more human. Capitalism encourages consumption to a fault: industry purposely engineers dispensable things, and the things industry creates still don’t fulfill the majority of humanity’s basic needs. A trip to a majority world country like Swaziland brings the realization that a number of people have cell phones that will break in three years but come from a village that still has no access to clean water. While many go without food, there are thousands of cars in dealerships all over our own country with no one to buy them. Instead of focusing on improving the health of humanity, capitalism has led to an excess of material things falsely deemed necessary and ignored true necessities.

– Finally, capitalism allows for the fulfillment of the purposes of some at the expense and exploitation of the majority. As we grow alienated from our labor and our humanness, we become alienated from one another. As demonstrated in the documentary The Corporation, virtually every corporation in the United States outsources labor from parts of the world where protection for workers simply does not exist. CEOs like Phil Knight of Nike Inc., have, in the past, completely ignored the conditions in their factories because their factories exist halfway around the world.* Few have ever actually visited their factories to see the working conditions, allowing the CEO’s primary focus to be monetary gain rather than concern for the human condition. Capitalist society is structured in such a way that exploitation becomes a necessary evil in order to create competition, and the capitalist can even exploit without coming face to face with the consequences of his actions. In this way, capitalism damages the morality of the capitalist.

I am not positing that communism represents an adequate solution for or response to the problems created by capitalism. I am positing, however, that Marx predicted the negative effects of capitalism that we are experiencing today, and that makes him worth listening to. I never would have been able to identify these problems if I hadn’t read Marx. We ought to listen to communists, and not just to compose better arguments against their ideology. We ought to listen to communists because they can help us see the problems with our system and work with us to respond to these problems in ways that improve the quality of life for the worker.

Realizing some of the flaws of capitalism helps us remember that the American Christian is not inherently a capitalist. To be a rich Christian (and that includes us—most American Christians are rich compared to the majority of the world) amidst poverty and hunger is to contradict the main focus of the Christian faith: human reconciliation and flourishing and the advancement of God’s kingdom. You might believe that the pros of capitalism outweigh the cons, but Christians, at least, should think hard about what it means to subscribe to any system that does not promote human flourishing for all.

 

*Nike has, as of late, improved their social responsibility. For details, click here.

True Religion And The Welfare State

I recently had a conversation with a friend who I would consider part of the “Christian Left.”  As I’ve mentioned before, those on the Christian Left tend, generally speaking, to reject evangelical assumptions about Scripture, such as inerrancy or perspicuity.  Many, like my friend, are sympathetic to modern textual-critical scholarship and doubt the authenticity and authority of entire books of the Bible, especially those of Paul.  These folks are often referred to as the “red-letter Christians” since, in their view, the loving and tolerant teachings of Jesus trump anything else in Scripture.

One Biblical author who gets almost equal weight, though, is James, and it’s easy to see why.  James has little patience for playing at religion, and a lot to say about social justice.

In the course of dialoging with my friend about federal welfare programs, I quoted from James, perhaps to establish my social justice cred, and also to preemptively rebut potential accusations that I don’t think Christians have a duty to care for the poor.  When I looked up the passage I had in mind, to quote it accurately, I was a little surprised.  James 1:27 reads,

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (NRSV)

Now, I always hear about the orphans and widows, but rarely hear about remaining unstained by the world, to the point that I forgot it was even part of the verse.  This prompted a thought.  While I believe it is certainly possible for Christians to support social welfare programs that demand more and more tax revenue and ever increasing government power, what happens when James 1:27a butts heads with James 1:27b?  In other words, what happens when our attempt at following the first half of James’ instruction ultimately forces us to compromise on the second half?  When Christians place the necessary responsibility of caring for widows and orphans in the hands of an increasingly secular entity whose goals are frequently in opposition to other important Christian beliefs, this dilemma is sure to follow.

A perfect example would be the recent HHS mandate, part of Obamacare, that requires Catholic and Evangelical institutions to pay for the contraceptive coverage of their employees or students.  This requirement runs directly counter to one of the most cherished (and assaulted) beliefs of Christianity, the value of the unborn child.  In essence, the government has mandated that Christian employers and academic institutions must financially support a worldly stain on their employees and students, and accept that stain by implication.  Thankfully, many of these institutions are fighting the mandate, but the fate of such legal cases is still far from certain.

If we ask, then, whether Christians ought to capitulate to the modern liberal ideal of the omni-competent state, the answer, I think, should be no. We cannot legitimately appeal to passages like James 1:27 to justify higher taxes and more welfare programs when the organization we have chosen to care for the widows and orphans is increasingly hostile to the other half of “pure and undefiled” religion.

An obvious objection is that we cannot refuse to aid the poor simply because the government is not as Christian as we would like.  But this turns on a false alternative.  We are not forced to choose between a totalizing welfare state or no welfare at all.  James is calling us as individual believers to live out this kind of selfless lifestyle daily and in the flesh.  In short, he is calling us to lives of charity.  Yet it should be obvious that allowing the government to tax you in order to theoretically spend some of that tax money on nameless, faceless people is not equivalent to a selfless life of charity.  James expects you to have more skin in the game.

You can give that same money to a mercy fund at your church, and not only will all of it go to actually helping the poor (since your Elders and Deacons are, or should be, unpaid volunteers), but you can actually put your boots on the ground and help to do the volunteer work yourself.  And it doesn’t have to be a church.  You can give your time and money to any small, volunteer-based group in your community.  The main point is that James is calling every Christian to personally engage in the work of charity, not to indirectly participate in the abstract idea of charity.  (I should add, this is especially true of those who fall into a low enough tax bracket that they do not end up paying any taxes, while eagerly voting to raise taxes on other, wealthier people).

Instead, I would argue that putting more money back in the hands of individuals enables them to do what James is calling them to do, without the potential excuse that paying taxes relieves them of responsibility.  Moreover, it takes that same money out of the hands of federal bureaucrats, who have a record of wasteful spending and mismanagement that helps no one, least of all the poor.

If we really want to live out the calling of James 1:27, we should work to rein in an out of control government and put the responsibility of helping the poor, widows and orphans back in the hands of our local churches and other community groups.

The flip side of that coin is that we must be willing to actually shoulder that responsibility.

Are we?

Social Justice, the Body of Christ, and the Reputation of Christians

Over at the Huffington Post, Zach Hunter has written a piece about his work in the area of human trafficking. At only 19–and having started his ministry when he was only 12–his track record likely puts many other believers to shame, so to speak. In this article, he speaks on the theological truth that we should be presenting the Gospel with actions as well as with words, and I think he is spot on. They will know we are Christians by our love, after all, and Jesus’ final call to us is to ‘make disciples': a necessarily active and action-oriented statement.

Continue reading Social Justice, the Body of Christ, and the Reputation of Christians