One of the most intriguing phenomena of the 20th century was the shift in the Catholic Worker movement from being an anti-communist movement to being an anti-capitalist movement.[1] This paper argues that this shift is contrary to the movement’s ideological foundation.
I was attracted to the Catholic Worker[2] for two reasons: pacifism and anarchism. I know others who were attracted to the Worker because of its commitment to the poor. These three commitments – pacifism, anarchism, and the betterment of the poor – are the three best reasons to support capitalism.
Pacifism and anarchism are flip sides of the same coin. To oppose violence with the pacifist is to join the anarchist in opposing the institutionalized violence of “the State.” The opposite of an anarchist – an “archist” – cannot be a pacifist. An “archist” is one who seeks to impose his will on others by force or threats of violence. A so-called anarchist who violently destroys the property of others is actually an archist, and the chaos, riots and disorder often associated with so-called anarchists is not a state of “anarchy,” but a state of poly-archy, or multi-archy, with violent (but relatively powerless) archists attempting to impose their will on others (usually more-powerful archists) by coercion rather than persuasion.
I have a conservative background, and like most Americans my age, was taught that “capitalism” was better than “socialism,” and that America was “capitalist.” More recently, “capitalism” has fallen out of favor. The ostensibly conservative Richard Nixon[3] famously quipped, “We are all Keynesians now,” by which he meant, nobody is a “capitalist” anymore.[4] Few people today are willing to identify themselves as defenders of capitalism. Capitalism is not trendy in our day. A self-identified “socialist” is far more likely to get a teaching position at a major university than one who openly defends “laissez-faire capitalism,” ceteris paribus.
In the last few years I have been studying capitalism in more detail, by reading the works of those who defend it most passionately. This study has been an eye-opening experience. I believe “capitalism,” rightly understood, is more compatible with the Catholic Worker ideology than socialism in any degree.
That little phrase “rightly understood” is the whole enchilada.
The story is told of the six blind men who offered descriptions of an elephant. Each was viewing only a part of the animal, one feeling the trunk, another the tail, another the huge legs, etc., and their varied descriptions of “an elephant” reflected their limited investigation.
Most descriptions of “capitalism” (particularly by those who attack it) are as far from reliable as those of the blind men. More ironically, the blind critics of capitalism are not only viewing only a part of the economic animal, but they are actually describing themselves, with one socialist critic of “capitalism” describing his own leg, another socialist critic of “capitalism” describing his own ear, etc. In other words, most criticisms of “capitalism” are criticisms of policies which are completely un-capitalistic, or they are pointing to problems created by socialism, not capitalism.
The name “capitalism” was coined by Karl Marx, a vehement opponent of capitalism. Capitalists have adopted Marx’s term as their own (without accepting Marx’s content, of course). One of the most comprehensive defenses of capitalism is George Reisman’s treatise on Capitalism.[5] It is a huge book, but easy reading, and full of insights. I would now put him among my top ten favorite writers.[6]
After a good deal of study, I offer this definition of capitalism:
Capitalism is a social system based on the rejection of
the initiation of force or violence against others.
This definition will surprise many who attack capitalism. Ask a critic of capitalism to define “capitalism” and the critic’s definition will not even be close to this definition[7]. Nevertheless, I do not know a single self-described defender of capitalism who would disagree with this definition. In fact, most would agree it gets to the very heart and soul of the dispute between capitalism and socialism. For the benefit of those who doubt, I would be happy to supply the quotations and footnotes from the writings of self-conscious defenders of capitalism to buttress my claim. The quotes would be many and lengthy. I would quote Ayn Rand,[8] George Reisman, Milton Friedman,[9] Ludwig von Mises,[10] F.A. Hayek,[11] and many other defenders of capitalism. As an example, the Libertarian Party, unquestionably the political party most vigorously committed to capitalism, requires its members to sign this pledge in order to join the party:
I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force
as a means of achieving political or social goals.
That is the full extent of the Libertarian Party membership pledge. It is widely viewed as the sine qua non of libertarianism.[12] It is often referred to by defenders of capitalism as “the principle of non-aggression.”[13]
This is not just an abstract academic debate. If capitalism really is a self-consciously non-violent ideology, the CW movement should rise to the defense of capitalism, given the CW commitment to non-violence. Socialism rationalizes violence. Socialism has meant slavery and death to hundreds of millions of human beings. Too many on the left who claim to be for peace defend The Welfare State (welfare socialism), which turns out to be window-dressing for The Warfare State. To oppose capitalism is to oppose the only economic system that repudiates the initiation of all violence. To wrongly define capitalism as a system that “exploits” the poor or in some other way initiates force against others is to pull the plug on an effective force for peace.
Rightly understood, then, an attack on capitalism is an attack on the heart and soul of the Catholic Worker. To say “I am not a capitalist” is to say “I support the use of violence to get what I want.”
Libertarian capitalists who are most consistent with the principle of non-aggression are “anarcho-capitalists” and functional pacifists, having opposed all wars in the 20th century, including the recent wars in the Middle East. Ayn Rand writes:
|
The overwhelming majority of mankind – the people who die on the battlefields or starve and perish among the ruins – do not want war. They never wanted it. Yet wars have kept erupting throughout the centuries, like a long trail of blood underscoring mankind’s history. Men[14] are afraid that war might come because they know, consciously or subconsciously, that they have never rejected the doctrine which causes wars, which has caused the wars of the past and can do it again – the doctrine that it is right or practical or necessary for men to achieve their goals by means of physical force (by initiating the use of force against other men) and that some sort of “good” can justify it. It is the doctrine that force is a proper or unavoidable part of human existence and human societies. Observe one of the ugliest characteristics of today’s world: the mixture of frantic war preparations with hysterical peace propaganda, and the fact that both come from the same source—from the same political philosophy. The bankrupt, yet still dominant, political philosophy of our age is statism. Observe the nature of today’s alleged peace movements. Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity. Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism and fascism to communism. This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed. Consider the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the brutality, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter perpetrated by dictatorships. Yet this is what today’s alleged peace-lovers are willing to advocate or tolerate . . . .[15] |
Capitalists, especially “anarcho-capitalists,” are a force for life and peace; socialists are a force for slavery and violence. Those who oppose capitalism oppose anarchism, either self-consciously or inadvertently (by supporting the growth and power of “the State”) and obstruct peace, either self-consciously or inadvertently (by supporting the most anti-pacifist institution on the planet, “the State”).[16] During the 20th century, on average, non-capitalist governments killed more than 10,000 people per day. This does not include abortions.[17] War makes up only about a third of that total. The Welfare State is far more deadly than The Warfare State.
What about the poor? Aren’t the poor crushed by capitalism, as the rich get richer in their greedy pursuit of their own “self-interest?”
Poverty has almost been abolished in capitalist countries. The “poverty level” in capitalist countries is the average income level in 2nd world socialist countries, and greater than average income in 3rd world non-capitalist countries by orders of magnitude. But the myth persists that “capitalism exploits the poor.” Consider this example:
Smith the Capitalist earns $100,000 in profits per year, but pays his employee Jones only 10% as much. After one year, Smith’s profits double to $200,000/year, but Smith raises Jones’ salary by a mere $10,000 per year. “The rich get richer,” but if Jones freely and voluntarily chooses to work for Smith, has Jones been damaged or “exploited” by the fact that the gap between his salary and that of the increasingly-rich Smith has increased from $90k/yr to $180k/yr? How is justice denied? Is justice preserved and enhanced by putting a gun to Smith’s head and compelling him to pay more to Jones? If Smith’s personal talents are displayed by his being the most efficient producer of an item valued by consumers, is justice served by dismantling Smith’s business and equally distributing the parts to the poor?
It is true that some capitalists like Ayn Rand despise altruism.[18] But capitalists (that is, those who repudiate “archism” [which is the imposition of one’s will on another through threats of violence or the initiation of force]) tend to be Christians (whether they call themselves “capitalists” or not).[19] Thus, nations that are more socialistic (and therefore more archist) tend to be more atheistic, while nations that are more capitalist tend to be more Christian, and Christians benefit the poor more than socialists who tend to be atheists. Thus Milton Friedman notes:
| It is noteworthy that the heyday of laissez-faire, the middle and late nineteenth century in Britain and the United States, saw an extraordinary proliferation of private eleemosynary organizations and institutions. One of the major costs of the extension of governmental welfare activities has been the corresponding decline in private charitable activities.[20] |
Capitalism is freedom, and freedom cannot compel anyone to help the poor. All capitalism does is prohibit stealing from the poor (which socialism does not prohibit; socialism is institutionalized theft). But which system is more likely to benefit the poor: a system which repudiates violence, or a system which institutionalizes it?
In his book Prosperity Through Freedom, Lawrence Fertig ties together capitalism’s spiritual and material benefits to the poor:
|
What are the virtues of a free-enterprise economy? Why is private capitalism of such great value to the American citizen that he should defend it to the death against Communism? It is the only system which can achieve the following objectives: Human Freedom Any economic system which does not accomplish this is bad, no matter what advantages are claimed for it. For over five thousand years people have struggled to ge their rulers off their backs, and it would be tragic if we retraced our steps. John Chamberlain in his Roots of Capitalism[21] has stated the case well in the following paragraph: “There are so many spiritual implications in liberty that it deserves to be considered an end in itself. Even if state planning offered more material goods, people who have known and cherished liberty would rather live as free human beings on a more modest standard of living then sell their birthright for a mess of totalitarian pottage.[22] But no such alternative exists. The fruits of totalitarianism are for the state, at most for a limited class.” The basic principle of traditional liberalism has always been, Beware of the encroachments of the state! The mammoth growth of centralized power has always robbed people of their liberty in the long run. Until recent times no one could lay claim to being a liberal unless he strongly believed in this guiding principle. The Most Efficient Economic System The second objective is to establish the most efficient economic system. What we want is the highest possible real income (clothing, food, conveniences, and necessities) for everyone. Competitive private enterprise and the free market are the basis of the most efficient system because they most expertly resolve the countless economic conflicts which take place all the time.[23] No individual or group is smart enough to decide the right relationship between millions of factors which are changing every week and even every day.[24] Only the free market can accomplish this by permitting the laws of supply and demand to operate through free [voluntary] pricing. How many electric dynamos shall we make, how many pairs of shoes, how many radios, how much cleaning service, how many hotels? These and countless other questions are decided every day in the give and take of the market. It is the only democratic way of deciding these things, for the only other method is for some autocrat to try to do this job arbitrarily, with the backing of the police power of the state. The remarkable record of economic progress in this country where the real income of all working people is doubled just about every thirty years is proof of our efficiency. The shortages, the famines, the snafus, the pathetic quality of construction and the persistently depressed standard of living prevailing in Communist countries is proof of their inefficiency. In the following chapters these statements will be amply documented. At this point I would like to make it clear that the ability of an iron-fisted Communist autocracy to direct workers in manufacturing specific items is unquestioned. They can force the production of machines, tanks, sputniks, and many other things in ample quantities. But nowhere on earth has such a hierarchy ever shown the ability to create a high standard of living for all the people although they are notably successful in creating luxury for themselves.[25] |
The poor are materially better off in capitalist nations, and are spiritually better off in a nation that repudiates violence as a tool of change.
Based on its track record for pacifism, anarchism and the betterment of the poor, capitalism still deserves the support of the Catholic Worker Movement:
· Capitalism respects Christ’s prohibition of archism (Mark 10:42-45). Capitalism’s opposite, socialism, does not.
· Socialism, particularly International Socialism (Communism) is a political philosophy of empire and conquest. Capitalism, particularly anarcho-capitalism, is anti-imperialist to the core.
· Communism subjugates the workers and further impoverishes the poor in the name of their “liberation.” Another word for capitalism is freedom, and freedom brings responsibilities, the personal fulfillment of which makes one more truly human.
[1] I call this phenomenon the “most intriguing” not because it is intriguing to most people (most people are utterly unaware of the existence of the Catholic Worker movement, to say nothing of its historical evolution), but because it is most intriguing to me, and, I would argue, to people like Peter Maurin, who co-founded the Catholic Worker movement with Dorothy Day. The name of the movement, “The Catholic Worker,” was the name of the movement’s newspaper, self-consciously chosen as an antithesis to the Communist Party’s newspaper, The Daily Worker. Maurin said the CW movement opposed the Stalinism of the left by going “to the right.”
[2] I was a member of the Orange County Catholic Worker community beginning in 1988, gradually phasing out around 1996. The movement embraces a form of “voluntary poverty,” or “economic precarity,” but is it even possible for a rational, faithful Christian to be poor in the United States? Billions of people on this planet would consider life in a CW House of Hospitality to be living in the lap of luxury. I ate and slept well during my years at the CW, putting on ten pounds. I used a donated computer, listened to a donated stereo, and drove a donated car. (At one point in time my name was on the pink slip of half a dozen cars.) I have been a full-time social service volunteer since I graduated from college, and since that time have never had a personal bank account -- since I have never had a “salary.” Some will call me financially “irresponsible” (and many have), but I don’t think of my situation as being “precarious.” I have long considered myself extraordinarily blessed, even “privileged.” Nevertheless, I am not what most people would call “a capitalist.”
[3] On the myth of Nixon as a conservative, see http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/cause/bush/Nixon.html
[4] John Maynard Keynes (pronounced, “Canes”)(1883-1946) was possibly the single most influential person in transforming America from a “capitalist” “free enterprise” nation into a “mixed” socialist economy. Most Americans are completely unaware of this transformation, still vaguely believing that America is a “capitalist” nation.
[5] George Reisman, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books, xlviii + 1046 pp, 1998. Reisman studied with Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, and translated some of Mises’ works into English.
[6] I helped him with his website ( www.capitalism.net ) and in exchange he gave me a nearly complete collection of his recorded lectures, so I might also place him among my top ten favorite speakers (although his speaking style is not impressive – he reads). Ironically, Reisman is a staunch atheist, with next to nothing complimentary to say about Christianity.
[7] Most definitions in mainstream economics texts or encyclopedias are not only inconsistent with this definition, they are nearly incomprehensible. In her essay “What is Capitalism?” Ayn Rand dissects these definitions, notably the entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and shows how they are not only self-contradictory, but subtly designed to advance a socialist agenda. They are not “neutral” or “objective.” See below, note 8.
[8] Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, with additional articles by Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, and Robert Hessen, New York: Signet Books, 1967
[9] Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, 1962. Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1976.
[10] Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, Yale University Press, 1949. See also the Mises Institute, www.Mises.org
[11] Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, University of Chicago Press, 1960. Hayek was a student of Mises, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974.
[12] I have twice been the Libertarian Party nominee for U.S. Congress. I run for political office not because I have the slightest chance of winning, but because it opens doors to discussions of economic and political issues, which I love. http://KevinCraig.US
Even if I were to win an election, I do not believe I would be permitted to assume office, since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that as an anarchist I cannot take the required oath to “support the Constitution” and become an “officer of the Court.” http://i.am/not-a-lawyer
[13] A google.com search for “capitalism” and “non-aggression” will bring up hundreds of relevant pages. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=capitalism+non-aggression
[14] Both Miss Rand and Dorothy Day eschewed the use of “gender-neutral language.”
[15] Rand, “The Roots of War,” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 35-36
[16] Communists like Joseph Stalin are psychopathic mass-murderers and warmongers. They self-consciously oppose peace. Many who work for socialist causes may be deceived into believing that state violence is justified if the goal is “helping the poor.” National Socialism (Nazism) also claimed to be on the side of “the workers,” and many non-psychopathic people supported Nazism.
[17] Now numbering 4,000 per day in America alone; 8-9 times that number in the “former” Soviet Union; figures unavailable for China, with a compulsory abortion policy.
[18] Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, NY: Signet Books, 1964.
[19] Christ prohibited His disciples from being “archists,” Mark 10:42-45, where the Greek is archein, from which we derive our word “anarchist.” Christ says we are not to love to rule over others, initiating force and threatening them with violence, in an attempt to compel them to abide by our notions of good or morality, even though by so doing we may be called “benefactors” by society (Luke 22:24-27).
[20] Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, chap xii, “The Alleviation of Poverty,” pp. 190-191. See also Marvin Olasky, The Tragedy of American Compassion, describing the State’s usurpation of a widespread network of voluntary associations, and the shift from spiritual remedies for poverty to the commoditization of the poor. Olasky coined the phrase “compassionate conservatism.”
[21] Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1968. [kc]
[22] Genesis 25:34; Hebrews 12:16 [kc]
[23] It is not just the most “efficient,” but it is the only peaceful system for resolving economic conflicts. While Marxism teaches inherent class warfare, capitalism teaches the inherent “harmony of interests” under freedom and a division of labor (Reisman, index entries under “harmony of interests”). [kc]
[24] And even every minute, in our age of electronic information. See Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, NY: Basic Books, 1980. [kc]
[25] Lawrence Fertig, Prosperity Through Freedom, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 1961, excerpted in The Capitalist Reader, edited with an introduction by Lawrence S. Stepelevich, published in 1977 by the pro-capitalist Arlington House, New Rochelle, NY.