The Virtues of Development
Rev. Sirico of the Acton Institute talks about the idealism of capitalism vs. the idealism of socialism:Only a few decades ago, we saw a political left that celebrated wealth for all and sought redistribution precisely so that people would no longer experience radical material deprivation. Now that it is increasingly clear that the means toward that end is markets and freedom—the democratization of the means of production, not forced redistribution, it seems that the left is more attached to its statist means than its material ends.
Others are driven by a more legitimate, if misguided, view that wealth necessarily corrupts the soul. Certainly wealth can corrupt. But so can poverty, or nearly anything else if misused. Wealth without morality leads to vice and moral corruption. So the answer is not an imposed poverty, but evangelism and conversion. This is why entrepreneurs and advocates of market freedom have a special obligation to emphasize the responsible use of prosperity, leisure, and charity.
Still others become very upset that wealth is not shared equally by all. This is a dangerous conviction because it can only lead to the celebration of expropriation. We need to realize that material equality should not be a policy goal; what we should seek is the universal increase in material well-being, even when its benefits are inequitably distributed. All of human experience and study suggests that there is only one means for bringing about this ideal: the market economy within a strong juridical framework that protects the right to property and life. There is a tightrope to be walked between the excesses of capitalism and the excesses of socialism. Neither system should be institutionalized by government, and this is where so many go wrong when it comes to political theory (and public policy for that matter).
Does central planning have a role? Sirico makes the argument not just for the state, but for "a strong juridical framework that protects the right to property and life" that provides that framework, so what we have here is not an argument for anarchy. Rather, it is an argument for the classical liberal state -- the Thomistic state the Scholastics perfected to some degree during the 16th century and brought to light during the Second Vatican Council.
I have my thoughts on this that are slowly emerging, somewhat as a response to John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience (and hence why I haven't posted a review). They are forthcoming though.
|
 |
James Atticus Bowden 
2 Comments:
Jealous, less civilized tribesmen living on the periphery of the first civilizations attacked, conquered, and gained the civilization they couldn't develop on their own.
Excess stuff doesn't create greed, envy, jealousy, coveting, etc. Any stuff will create greed, envy, jealousy, coveting, etc.
Capitalism creates incredible freedom of opportunity for labor. Everyone doesn't have work from a limited number of vocations. More capitalism and more stuff create more freedom.
The sinfulness of persons comes from the fallen nature of man, not from the inanimate stuff.
This having been said, there are excesses in both socialism and capitalism. Facism would be an excess of capitalism (and I would argue that at that point, it no longer is capitalism but a command economy).
At the root of this is power. Power can be collected by the few, or by the "proletariat" (for lack of a better term). One can either arrive at a fascist state, or a communist state, with the ultimate collectivization of personal power being nothing short of anarchy.
Power is either taken by government, or as Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Grotius, Aquinas, or the host of scholastic/British Enlightenment thinkers arrived upon, it is given by consent of the governed.
In this respect, the free market is indeed most moral, because the person chooses to interact with society and constrains himself only by participating. They only way such a system can preserve itself is by recognizing the fullness of the human person -- not merely as individuals but as persons worthy of respect (the difference between Mill and Aquinas' when it comes to an approach to classical liberalism).
I could go on and on, but I'll not bore folks with the details. I do certainly believe that capitalism can be excessive when it treats individuals for what they produce rather than as imago Dei. This was the prime fallacy of John Stuart Mill and the British Enlightenment, which ultimately leads towards a response from society -- ultimately through government and with no reasonable end because human nature will always tend towards safeguarding the person rather than towards the wheels of commerce, shortsighted or no.
Post a Comment
Home