"Capitalism" usually means "freedom," especially in the vocabulary of self-conscious defenders of the "free market." "Socialists" have quite a different definition of capitalism: a system of state-sponsored individualistic greed and exploitation; a system where money is more important than community, health, charity, or sacrificial service. Even some defenders of "traditional values" have less-than-enthusiastic reviews of "capitalism." Consider this definition of capitalism from an extreme right-wing periodical:
CAPITALISM: The economic system of democracy but often found in military dictatorships. A degenerate form of free enterprise. The means of production, money, banking and the political process are controlled by a small group of oligopolist/monopolist capitalists for their own personal gain. Basically hostile to nationalism. Constant expansion through war, imperialism or tax-financed pyramid building required to feed the constantly-growing interest burden. Inflation is inherent in the system. Capitalism is incompatible with widespread competition in the economic, intellectual or political spheres. Because of the interest incentive and its common foundations with Marxism of equalism and monopoly, capitalism inevitably degenerates to crisis and Marxism. The word has been coined by Karl Marx and ever since then has been defended by conservative and libertarian intellectuals.
Conservative capitalists thus defend (surveying the above definition) democracy, militarism, "limited government" (it never is), and oppose free coinage and a true gold standard (the thought of having to pay back their debts in stable currency is staggering).
Capitalism thus turns out to be freedom for those in power; for those who are the government, or those who go along with their program. Self-centeredness is encouraged because atomism lends itself to centralization of power in the hands of the capitalists who both control and profit from the consumption of the greedy.
Only "Laissez-Faire Capitalism" or "anarcho-capitalism" is true capitalism. Any other form of capitalism is socialistic and interventionist.
Defending Capitalism Against a "Capitalist" (a Critique of George Soros)
The Naked Capitalist: Readings in international finance
REDS IN AMERICA - CONSPIRACY TO RULE THE WORLD
Capitalism and Moral Socialism
Which system provides for greater economic growth: economic socialism, or economic capitalism?
America and other Western nations have long paid lip service to the benefits of freedom. Capitalism, we are told, has a proven track record of productivity and progress. Only when men are allowed the fruits of their labors is there the incentive necessary for economic growth.
|
Most would quickly concede that, regardless of the actual policies of Western nations, America has a higher material standard of living than nations with low levels of personal freedom.
But economics is a complex science, and the true levels of prosperity (including spiritual dimensions) may be lower than we are accustomed to thinking. Compared to Biblical standards, levels of personal freedom may also be surprisingly low in these countries.
But let us assume that we do enjoy a high level of freedom, and that this freedom is responsible for what we will assume is a high standard of living.
Let us consider the realm of spiritual growth. Let us consider ethics.
Which system provides for greater moral growth: ethical socialism or ethical capitalism? Under which system will moral character likely be cultivated?
Interestingly, the same conservatives who advocate "capitalism" (economic freedom) are usually those who advocate ethical socialism, which is to say, ethical totalitarianism. Rather than allowing others moral freedom, "ethical planners" are viewed as necessary to provide "moral stability." If depraved men were given freedom to make moral decisions as they see fit, "moral chaos" would ensue.
Is it the case that "ethical protectionism" gives men the moral incentives needed to produce moral growth? Are tutors and governors necessary under the New Covenant (Galatians 3:25 - 4:9)?
We say that economic freedom provides economic growth. If men run counter to basic economic laws (supply and demand, etc.) then they will not prosper; but the possibility of economic failure does not justify regulation by other men.
The same analysis must prevail in the realm of ethics. Men who disobey God's Law in any area will feel the judgment of God's Government. But God nowhere commands men to play god by setting themselves up as a human providence to regulate the lives of others.
We tend to be repulsed by the thought of no "ethical planners." Moral "anarchy" scares us, and we retreat from "ethical capitalism." But the answer is not ethical totalitarianism, or an elite, police state, or bureaucratic board compelling allegiance to a static moral standard. The answer is ethical socialism.
The Bible is very plain in its community-based perspective. Not atomism, or "rugged individualism," but community; the "extended family" in contact with the world, extending hospitality, living the Gospel of Adoption, evangelizing their sphere of influence: this is the environment which produces moral maturity. State-less socialism is the Biblical pattern; community describes the Church; men are born into Families, not as "rugged individualists."
Art Gish has written a book which shows how Christian community should (and does) work through freedom to produce moral growth. We must examine it.
[quote being converted to HTML]
Unfortunately, we cannot begin to understand Gish and the concept of Christian community as long as we are plagued by capitalist myths, the same myths which compel us to raise our eyebrows at the concept of "ethical capitalism" or freedom taken to "extremes."
Upon close analysis it will be found that "capitalism" is actually threatened by freedom. Just as a fear of depression is greater in America than a fear of hyper-inflation, so we also have a fear of moral "anarchy" or lawlessness. We need to re-define our terms, and then re-examine the myths of capitalism.
The Myths of Capitalism
It can certainly be debated whether or not Western nations in fact have a higher material standard of living than a more "primitive" agrarian past. "Planned obsolescence" is a by-word in an age of slick advertising for worthless merchandise. Appliances and machinery are designed to be replaced in a matter of months. This compares with a former era in which decentralized mechanical competence ensured technological longevity.
Plastic culture may also be having an effect on our health. With AIDS, cancer, and heart disease claiming thousands, while the "living" exist at vastly lower levels of stamina, personal health, and vitality than in an age where physical labor was plentiful, it cannot be conceded that health has improved. We are a drug-dependent culture. Health and "medicine" are not the same thing. Natural health is a thing of the past.
Are we more technologically advanced than our forefathers? Are we as technologically advanced as we could have been under another system? The story of Nicola Tesla is instructive in this respect. Tesla invented the Alternating current system which we use today. Scientists in his day were unanimous that alternating current violated the laws of nature and was physically impossible. Tesla persevered because he saw the benefits accruing to humanity with the spread of alternating current. His contract with George Westinghouse called for a small amount to be paid to Tesla for each horsepower generated by Tesla's Alternating Current system. It soon became obvious that such a contract called for Tesla to become a trillionaire in an economy valued far less than a trillion dollars; it would have utterly bankrupted Westinghouse. Tesla cancelled the contract, because his goal was altruistic to the core: to give mankind the benefits of Alternating Current. He died relatively poor.
Tesla's vision extended far beyond Alternating Current. He devised systems of transporting electrical current without wires. He devised force fields which would have prevented air attacks. Thomas Edison, whose intelligence was dwarfed by Tesla's, fought Tesla with all his investment muscle. Edison had placed his bets on the Direct Current horse, a vastly inferior animal. D.C. current would not have allowed transmission of electricity over vast distances as is possible under A.C. Edison, the "capitalist," could not see past his wallet.
We now have A.C., but we do not have the wireless transmission of power proven possible by Tesla. Our skies are clouded by unnecessary wires and poles. We have no defense against nuclear-armed missiles from China. We do not have the Free Energy devices invented by Tesla, which tap the energy of the earth itself. We are trapped by sheet-covered Arabs who hold the key to our gas tanks.
Today's most advanced nuclear laboratories have not been able to duplicate the power generated and harnessed by Tesla in his small laboratories.
Tesla's life was anti-capitalist to the core. Unconcerned with profits, his desire was to harness power for the service and benefit of mankind.
Where would we be today if all our economic system had been based on social service (Tesla) rather than individual profit (Edison)?
Where would we be today if communication and the media were not controlled by an elite of capitalists, and the ideas of Tesla and others were not replaced with the party line of those who had invested in the status quo?
Totalitarianism vs. Socialism
We must distinguish between Totalitarianism, or dictatorship, and Socialism. It will surprise some to hear that there are those who call themselves "anarcho-socialists." "How can anarchism (the absence of the State) be combined with socialism (total State control)?" some will ask.
Anarchy, meaning an absence of the machinery of coercion and force (the State) is not the opposite of Socialism. Socialism takes its name from a concern for society, or community, and does not presuppose a divine State. The concern for fragmented society and for a vital, supportive community is plainly a Biblical concern.
In the realm of economics, a little thought should suggest that the best system for producing economic growth is not one based on greed or covetousness. Genuine and humane economic growth will take place when large numbers are motivated to serve others in a sacrificial sense, not a self-benefiting sense. Christ came not to be served (profit) but to serve (loss -- Mark 8:35 and 10:45).
What characterizes capitalism is individual-ism, and this is the opposite of social-ism. But can a concern for self be as successful in generating social growth and prosperity as a concern for society? Will atomism bring the diverse gifts of a social body together? Will a system based on competition foster a harmony of interests?
Free market economists have been quick to answer such questions with a defense of freedom and a warning against totalitarianism. But this does not answer the question when posed by an anarcho-socialist, who criticizes totalitarianism with a zeal unmatched by the limited government advocates of "capitalism." We do not defend a system of dictators who compel us to be socially-oriented. The contrast is between anarcho-socialism and state-capitalism; between freedom in community and structured atomism.
Random House: A theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Webster's: the theory or system of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products.
Funk and Wagnall's: A theory of political and economic organization advocating public collective ownership of the means of production, public collective management of all industries, and production for need and use instead of profit.
3 The philosophy that holds that reform in social conditions may brought about by collective effort: distinguished from individualism, capitalism, communism, anarchism, etc.
Our thesis accepts as a matter of unchanging economic law the fundamental inefficiency of centralized government planning over free market decision-making. The reader can turn to these works for a nearly complete defense of the concept:
Mises in particular, and his Nobel Prize-winning student, F. A. Hayek, conclusively proved that without the price mechanism of the free market, socialist planners can never allocate resources in the most efficient manner. Mises’ work has never been refuted:
More works are found in the Bibliography below.
Some Fundamental Insights Into the Benevolent Nature of Capitalism