Has ‘capitalism’ an acceptable face, or is it inherently covetous and thus carries within itself the roots of its own evil? Is it morally acceptable or is it an anathema because it personifies greed and because, in the words of Marx and Engels “it splits society into two camps, two great classes directly facing each other: bourgeoisie and proletariat.” (The Communist Manifesto)
These questions have stimulated an ongoing controversy by philosophers, economists, politicians and churchmen. The debate continues. The quest for a satisfactory answer is unabated.
Marx and Engels had great expectations regarding the outcome of the conflict between these two forces. They described capitalists as gravediggers of themselves and said that the victory of the proletariat was “inevitable”. In later years, Nikita Kruschev confidently predicted that socialism would bury “the capitalist world”
Pope Leo XIII reacted to the communist manifesto by teaching (Rerum Novarum) that class conflict would harm individuals, families, society and the State, and that “it was a great mistake to imagine that class is spontaneously hostile to class”. He affirmed that “socialism of the type advocated by Marx and Engels, was of no use to the workers.”
At the same time, Pope Leo XIII was almost as dismissive of “liberalism”. For many years, traditional Catholic teaching on economic matters has been, at best, ambivalent and, at worst, suspicious of capitalism. Advocates of the theology of liberation developed outright hostility to capitalism.
Christian potential
On reflection, one does not need to bend over backwards to assume that God’s liberation is for everyone and that the poor need to be liberated no less than the rich, and vice-versa.
The discerning mind can, with an effort, sense a Christian potential in the social device of a free market, in private property, in profit, and in man’s enterprise.
Markets are not, essentially, instruments of exploitation, egoism, alienation or social disruption. They are instruments conceived by man as a social animal to serve the human community.
Like all things human, they can be used badly, inadequately, even for evil purposes. As the distinguished American theologian, Michael Novak, put it “no less than man himself, markets are capable of both good and evil”.
Poor nations or communities that accept the theory that capitalism is an anathema because it is covetous draw up the formula which prescribes their own punishment. While some denounce capitalism because it unleashes the spirit of materialism, it is salutary to reflect and to realise that paupers in many countries benefit from health care to which rich noblemen of a few centuries ago never had access, and that the lowest paid worker today has access to fresh and varied foods, from all over the world, wherever the market system generates the wealth and the wherewithal.
This did not happen overnight. For very many years, Catholic social and economic teaching focused on the ethic of distribution and neglected the sphere of production. Many churchmen were, for a long time, unable to understand the importance of this distinction. Some consider this akin to a moral failure.
It had to be the reigning Pope John Paul, absurdly vilified as “reactionary” by some forces of the extreme left, who contributed greatly to put matters in focus.
He has gone so far as to recommend “the free economy, the market economy” which is the economy of creativity and enterprise. In the encyclical Centesimus Annus, he was even ready to refer benignly to ‘capitalism’ so long as this concept provided for a worthy judicial system protecting human rights, and a moral/religious system imposing ethical limits.
Basic framework
Pope John Paul’s arguments rest on the framework which conceives man as the image of God. Humans made to the image of the Creator fulfil an essential human vocation when they participate in the enterprise of creation. Moreover, personal economic initiative is perceived as a human right.
The Pope sees that, for much of Christian history, the most important form of wealth was land. He noted that, in time, wealth came to be associated with ownership of the means of production. In his first social encyclical, the same Pope used the term “capital” to denote impersonal objects and “labour” by human persons as factors of production.
In Centesimus Annus, “capital’ is neither land nor the impersonal means of production but “the possession of know-how, technology and skill”. The Pope came round to the view that the chief source of wealth of nations is the human brain – invention, discovery, enterprise, management skill and organisation.
He elucidated further. “The wealth of industrialised nations is based much more on this kind of ownership than on natural resources” he said. Besides the earth, man’s principal resource is man himself.
Decisive factor
As Pope John Paul expressly put it, “today, the decisive factor is increasingly man himself, that his knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, his capacity for interrelated and compact organisation, as well as his ability to perceive the needs of others and to satisfy them”.
Creativity yields wealth as natural resources alone do not. Where human creativity is at work, communal solidarity is at play. In Centesimus Annus, the Pope writes, “People work with each other, sharing a ‘community of work’ which embraces ever widening circles.” And he goes on to say: “A person who produces something other than for his or her own use generally does so in order that others may use it after they have paid a just price, mutually agreed upon through free bargaining. It is precisely the ability to foresee both the needs of others and the combinations of productive forces most adapted to satisfying those needs that constitutes another important source of wealth in modern society ...
“It is (man’s) disciplined work, in close collaboration with others, that makes possible the creation of ever more extensive working communities which can be relied upon to transform man’s natural and human environments. Important virtues are involved in this process, such as diligence, industriousness, prudence in undertaking reasonable risks, reliability and fidelity in interpersonal relationships, as well as courage in carrying out decisions which are difficult and painful but necessary both for the overall working of a business and in meeting possible setbacks”.
The Pope urges theologians and other Christians to view this business process “carefully and favourably”.
It is time for this social teaching to start being disseminated in these islands, if for no other reason to counter deep-seated prejudices and to shed some light where ignorance continues to prevail.
At this particular time Malta needs the willing contribution of all the forces of enterprise and all its available managerial, financial and productive resources to overcome its problems and to survive in a world of relentless and unforgiving competition. More than anything else, it needs the ingenuity, the know-how and managerial acumen necessary for survival. Without that, and social stability, the challenge could be overwhelming.
* * *
In writing the above, I have drawn liberally from the text if a speech delivered some time back by Professor Michael Novak on the Morality of the Marketplace at a conference hosted by the University of Newcastle-on-Tyne.
The conference was organised under the joint auspices of the British Institute of Economic Affairs and the Department of Religious Studies at the same university.
[email protected]