Returning To The "Good" Old Days?

 In the 18th century, it seemed that there was a move in the western world away from authoritarian rule and toward democracy. The attempts in those first efforts were significantly flawed. America's independence followed by its new Constitution, which though providing an improvement over European aristocracies, was written in order to maintain the status quo for America's new elites. In the meantime, France's initial attempt for democracy simply saw one set of authoritarians replace another. The same occurred in Russia's 1917 October Revolution. 

Of course, we are taught to think that Western democracy started with America.  Those exceptional claims that we Americans make about ourselves is just one of our "charms" that so "endears" us to the world. Of course, some of us who would pretend to be educated point back to Greece as providing the origin of democracy. But some Americans, like Ben Franklin, were influenced by what the Iroquois (actually the Haudenosaunee) Confederation had constructed.

Over time, America has become more democratic even though it still has a long way to go. A nation founded on white supremacy cannot be counted as a full democracy until that white supremacy is utterly destroyed and is not replaced by another ethnocracy or a classocracy.

Though Germany experimented with a democracy just after WW I, democracy did not really take hold until some time after WW II. I cannot speak to France's evolution to democracy even though the French seem to have a better vision of what a democracy is than we Americans have.

But here is the point. Evidence that democracy is on the upswing when  authoritarian nation start evolving toward democracy has its counterpart by noting that democracy is dying out when seemingly democratic nations drift toward authoritarian rule. And that is where we have to look at America again.

Right now, America is flirting with embracing a fascist type ruler. That is the kind of leadership that both Trump and DeSantis are offering. Both are looking to end the influence of competitors so that people who agree with them and support their agendas can experience more freedom while those who disagree receive either revenge or are silenced. Little do they know that Freedom - Equality = Privilege. And thus, instead of working, and fighting in some cases, for freedom, they are actually striving for privilege and control. And that can be clearly seen when Republican leaders vow to or work on eliminating wokism. For the Trump side of the Republican Party seems to only believe that there should be one Constitutional right: the right to conform to their beliefs.

We should note here that our nation has 2 foundational secular institutions: our democracy and the free market. And counter to any claims by conservative ideologues, these 2 institutions oppose each other. Democracy and the free market are ideological enemies. For whereas democracy is egalitarian because it is based on 1-person/1-vote. The free market is based on 1-dollar/1-vote. That means that in a land where everyone is supposedly equal, some are more equal than others because they have more dollars. And we have seen a similar theme expressed before in an Orwell novel.

However, we should also note that democracy is more than just allowing majority rule, it is about preserving every group's equal status in society. Thomas Jefferson warned us that denying the minority their equal rights and standing is synonymous with oppression. And thus, democracy has a self-limiting discipline in any group's or person's pursuit of self-interest. That self-limiting discipline is to avoid denying another person's or group's equality while seeking one's own interests. In fact, the more democratic we are, the more conscientious we are about protecting the rights and equality of others.

The battle we see in America is between democracy and the free market. If the free market provides the biggest influence on democracy, then what we will see is an endless king-of-the-hill political battle between the candidates and parties to see who will win control the nation. For the free market is about competing to conquer and control, so long as you don't give the appearance of having a monopoly.

When democracy is influencing the free market more than the other way around, then we will see a more egalitarian sharing of wealth and resources in the economy. That doesn't mean that we will have neither the wealthy nor the poor. But it does means that our wealth and income disparities won't continue to grow as they have with our current form of neoliberal capitalism for the past few decades.

A prerequisite for a democracy is that people can see complexity in the world. They need to be able to see complexity because democracy is sometimes about balancing the rights of opposing groups--simplistic thinking would only consider the rights of one group. In addition, with  democracy, they can see that most, if not all, opponents are not all bad especially since democracy demands that we share power and collaborate with others. And so when we are able to recognize complexity in people, we also see that all of us are a mix of good and bad. 

A prerequisite for authoritarian rule is to have enough people who hold to a black-white world view. With such a view, people are seen as being all good or all bad depending on whether they side with one's own group or leader. And when people see those from other groups that way, there is a growing reluctance to share power and collaborate with them on how to solve problems. So guess what kind of thinking does the free market encourage? Does it encourage us to share with those who have different views or to wrestle to conquer them in order to gain exclusive control?

So here we should think about the influencers that surround us. How are they teaching us to think? Are they teaching us in ways that will move us to promote democracy? Or are they teaching us defeat our opponents before they beat us?

Here we should note that influencers don't have to be ideological or religious leaders. Influencers can also include artists on whom we depend for entertainment and a break from the real world. Here we need to ask if our entertainers or artists promote a simple worldview where we are preoccupied solely with our own interests and concerns or do they enable us to also recognize the needs and rights of others. 

Because of the above, the future of America frightens me especially because that future will affect my children and grandchildren more than it will affect me. In addition to looking at the other trends in culture, I see culture favoring simplistic, black-white pictures of the world. Such a view is in our news, our education, our religions, and in our arts and entertainment. Those black-white worldviews can sabotage the best social justice efforts because such worldviews prohibit us from being careful not to violate the rights and equality of others while seeking our own or our group's rights. The black-white worldviews also interfere with our trusting others because those who have some disagreements with us are then regarded as having no redeemable contributions or claims to make.

And so the above paints an horrific picture of America's future. Not only does our preference for the market mean that we favor control over others, but the kind of thinking we are encouraged to employ pushes us to accept authoritarian rule out of self-defense if not out of ambition.

Capitalism's Curse

Not too long ago, a friend of mine accused those who demonize the wealthy of hypocrisy. For while those critics rightly condemn the wealthy for operating from self-interest, he observed that those critics do what they chastise the wealthy for doing: they too act out of self-interest.

Self-interest is the curse of capitalism. Not that we should never consider self-interest in making decisions, we must and we all do. But in the fertile soil of capitalism, self-interest grows like weeds that eventually take over a lawn. Self-interest devours other concerns and thus can too easily become the only factor used when making decisions.  And that is especially true in capitalist economies because capitalism promises us that the Free Market will protect us from treating others unfairly when acting solely out of self-interest. Thus owners let the Free Market determine the wages of their employees rather than what their employees need to be paid in order to survive or live out of poverty. And those who fail in the Free Market are then looked on as not deserving of what others have and that can include even if that means not deserving to survive.
 
What self-interest in capitalism causes is both morally wrong and self-destructive to society. That is because self-interest in capitalism tells us that the needs and concerns of others are not our responsibility. After all, in a capitalist economy, people should only get what they earn. And to receive from the bounty of others which has not been freely donated is considered to be stealing and is destructive to both the economy and society. Of course those who have can freely donate to others, but they are not obligated to. That means that those in need survive at the pleasure of those who have. And that also means helping those in need revolves more around the egos of those who give rather than the needs of the vulnerable. 

With there being nothing immoral about ignoring those in need, suffering can abound without those who have feeling guilty. And as long as those who have don't break any laws, they can comfortably live as selfishly as they want to.

Eventually, when the needs of the vulnerable are ignored, it causes problems in society. Those problems can include violence and theft because the vulnerable will often will have learned from the haves to let their choices be more and more determined by self-interest. That shows how the haves can also cause problems in society even when they follow the law.

But there is another problem caused by reducing our concerns more and more to self-interest. The problem is that just as we learn to ignore the needs of others, we also learn how to ignore the externalities that exist in our systems. For example, we might decide to ignore the pollution caused by our way of living. Here we should note how the percentage of Americans who deny climate change compares with the percentage of citizens from other nations (click here for info). Why is that the case? It is because the more self-interest guides the decisions of the haves, the more they tend to focus on immediate standard of living consequences rather than long-term ones.

The biggest threat to our way of life and society is our current emphasis on self-interest. And the fuel for that emphasis is our economic system. Our current economic system pushes us to base our decisions more and more on self-interest. What we need is an economic system that requires that we balance our self-interest with the interests of and concerns for others. We need an economic system that distributes power between owners and workers with both groups being concerned about each other and not just themselves. We need an economic system that also takes into account both social and physical externalities. Why do we need that? It is because our current emphasis on self-interest is self-destructive.  This can be seen in the growing wealth disparity in our nation as well as the harm we doing to the environment.





 

Is The Free Market The Real Reason For The Season?

The Christmas season has now started regardless of which generation's seasonal calendar one uses. For people my age, Christmas season always started the day after Thanksgiving.  But times have changed. And though I don't know when the change occurred, some younger generations now recognize the day after Halloween as the beginning of the Christmas season. No doubt some even recognize the Christmas season as starting some time before Halloween. And it isn't unrealistic to think that the Christmas season will eventually last all year long if it keeps being extended.

Now if Jesus is the reason for the season, then we should note that Christmas shopping is the reason for the long lines we face in traffic and many stores. And in America, Christmas is more about Christmas shopping than it is about what the New Testament says about the birth of Jesus Christ. This unbiblical center of Christmas does invite and enable the celebration of Christmas to be more inclusive and thus involves a great diversity of people as well as includes more people. But that inclusivity comes at an extremely high price for the Gospel.

Christmas shopping enables many retail stores to remain in business. I remember way back when I use to sell pianos and organs in a mall, we were told that we depended on Christmas sales to continue to exist. Unfortunately, sales of pianos and organs were down during that time period.

Again, for most of America, Christmas is more about shopping than it is about the Gospel. And what follows is that Christmas is more about making a profit than it is about faith. This is yet another example of how the Free Market and its values invade an institution or tradition so that its values change how that institution operates or how a tradition is observed. 

This blog has stated more than once that the Free Market has changed how Democracy is viewed and practiced more than how Democracy has changed how the Free Market is allowed to operate. And what is being said here is that Democracy is not the only victim of the Free Market. The Free Market has a greater influence on how we observe Christmas, even among many Christians, than how the Christian Faith and the story of the Nativity has affected how we utilize the Free Market.

If what is being claimed here is true, then America is spiritually lost to all the trappings of materialism and all that it is included with living as a thing-oriented society. To a thing-oriented society, things are more important than people. Thus, such a society resists changing any part that would increase the priority we put on people over things. This means that we will protect an economic system that is increasing wealth disparity among its people from change. This means that we will resist safeguarding and ensuring social safety nets if that includes having less money in our own pockets. This means that we will be fearful of immigrants emigrating to our nation lest they benefit from society and its system more than they contribute. And this means that we will be more interested in the sale of weapons both at home and abroad than we will be in on those who are the victims of the use of those weapons. Here, one only needs to think about how President Trump rejected the idea of even confronting Saudi Arabia for the murder of Khashoggi because of the vast amount of money involved in weapons contracts with that nation.

While many of my fellow religiously conservative Christian Americans search hard to find scapegoats for the fall of America, we need only to look in the mirror for the true guilty party. For as the old saying goes, 'we have met the enemy and they are us.' And the enemy is us when the Free Market has a greater say over how we celebrate Christmas than the New Testament has. But that is hard for us to recognize since we have so often conflated the America we grew up in with our faith.




 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 12, 2016

Oct 7

To Joseph Mussomeli and his blogpost that requested a revised definition for American Exceptionalism due to the abuses that have come from interventions based on the term. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.


This article on American Exceptionalism has some good points especially on the failures of American interventionism. And the suggestions on how to avoid the pitfalls of both isoloationism and interventionism show progress over the foreign policy principles that both Republican and Democratic Presidents have been following. But in the end, shouldn't we dismantle the term altogether? For the form of American Exceptionalism promoted by Washington and Adams allowed for the 'infant empire,' Washington's term to describe America, to expand and mature while flying under the radar of the saltwater test used to define an empire. For how was our conquest of our part of North America different from the Nazi attempt to conquer Europe or North Korea's attempt to take South Korea? And wasn't our conquest based on the doctrine of Manifest Destiny and thus a form of American Exceptionalism?

The only way to escape the American Exceptionalism trap is to not only submit to international law as all other nations should, but to change the structure of the UN so that there is no Security Council so that all resolutions are determined democratically. That includes the resolving of our grievances against others subject to the UN and/or the ICC. Such an approach becomes the only true alternative between isolationism and interventionism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that contradicts the notion that having great wealth is evil. His blogpost cites an article written by Dylan Pahman. This appeared in the Acton blog.

In trying to explain why wealth in and of itself is not evil, It's odd that, with all of his Biblical expertise, Dylan Pahman did not reference I Timotthy 6:10 in his article cited by Carter. Paul wrote the following to Timothy:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Along with the Scriptures referred to by Pahman in his article cited by Carter, the above Scripture verse should move us to seek a middle ground between the belilef that wealth is evil and the belief that being wealthy can be good. It's the 'love of money' is what is labeled as being evil. With that being the case, where does that put the Christian who is seeking wealth? Is the Christian seeking a treasure that could undo his/her faith? The quote from I Timothy seems to indicate that could be the case.

We should note that the love of money can be implemented by both how we set out to make money as well as what we refrain from sharing with others. The presence of rich believers to whom Pahman refers in his article shows that having wealth is not necessarily evil. And that is a Biblical answer. However, what we need to explore is not whether the mere possession of wealth is wrong, but whether seeking great wealth is wrong. Is there a kind of seeking that is honored by the Scriptures? What kind of seeking for wealth shipwrecks our faith? These are the questions that should have been asked and answered in the first place. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 10

To Tim Keller and his blogpost on what Christians can do to help restore civility in the public square. This appeared in the Gospel Coalitiioon website.

There is a missing ingredient here regarding creating a tolerant and civil culture and society. And that ingredient comes from the Scriptures. It comes from the parable of the two men praying. Part of the lesson from that parable is somewhat covered when Keller states that we Christians should admit to having failed in building such a culture and society by our attempts to marginalize groups. 

But there is more to the parable of the two men praying than just admiting past failures. If we still believe that we are superior to others, then no amount of confessing past failures removes us from playing the role of the pharisee from the parable. For while we might admit to some past failures, our eyes will still be focused on how we compare with others and our minds will continue to entertain delusions of righteousness about ourselves which gives us permission to lord our principles over others. 

A model of thought that Keller developed in his book Center Church could be adapted for society to promote civility. That model thought showed a 2-D grid where Keller identified a Christian group in each of the 4 quadrants of the grid according to what each group believed in how the Church should interact with society. And what was great about that model is that Keller listed the strengths and weaknesses of each group of Christians including the strengths of groups other than his own and the weaknesses of the group he most identified with. Perhaps we should do the same here and list the strengths and weaknesses of each group in society so that we could better notice the contributions that are made by others and the problems caused by us. Such a listing puts checks on any group's desire to rule over and marginalize others.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 11

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why the free market should be called the 'initiative-centered economy.' This appeared in the Acton blog.

Here is what the free market should be called: 'Privilege-oriented economy.'  Why? Because what free market apologists say is that the government should take a hands off approach to the market. That message is universal regardless of the kind of government that is in place. Thus, to those governments that act as working democracies, free market apologists say to the people in society: 'take your hands off the economy.' Thus, a free market economy says that the people in given society cannot make rules that would govern how owners in the free market relate to the rest of society. Thus, some of the owners become a privileged group in any society where a substantially free market exists. 

And, according to how the free market works, it is the dollar that determines the value of both the free market and its participants. How people treat each other is not an issue for the free market provided that  "rights" are not violated. How the environment is impacted is not an issue for the free market. And so workers and other stakeholders can be exploited and the environment can be harmed in any economy that employs a free market system. And why is that the case? Because the free market exists when government, even democracies, take their hands off the market. 

The free market not only allows for the consolidation of wealth, but it also allows for the consolidation of what follows wealth which is power forthe  elite owners in the free mearket. And what follows that consolidation of power is government interference in the free market for the purpose of keeping the status quo for the sake of the elite owners. And once we understand that, we understand why The Constituion was written. For The Constitution was written in response to dissent and Shays Rebellion so that our federal government could more effectively respond to future insurrections. One only needs to see all of the Constitutional references to the Militia to see evidence pointing to that interpretation of The Constitution.

Some evidence that supports the above statements can be found in the recent treatment of the TPP by the Obama administration. President Obama has attempted to fast track the legislation that would move the US to join the TPP. Here we should note that one of the provisions of the TPP is that if a government passes a law or laws that could or actually do interfere with corporate profits, that corporation, regardless of the national origin of that corporation, can sue the government passing those laws.  And that lawsuit would be heard in a tribunal constructed by the TPP rather than the courts of the given nation that passed such laws.  In addition, we should note that governments are not allowed to sue corproations under the TPP structure. Such shows what was said above about how power follows wealth so that those who have power can maintain a privileged status over the people of a society even if it isn't their own society. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 7, 2015

Oct 1
To Trevin Wax and his blogpost stating that the war waged by our fleshly desires against our souls is  a more important battle than the current culture war. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition Website


In one sense, I agree with the article though not for the same reasons as the author did. The war on our souls is a more important battle than the culture war because, IMO, the current culture war is our fault. There would be no culture war if none of the sides involved sought to dominate the others. But that is exactly what we tried to do. To create a society in the image of the ideals of religiously conservative, American Christians, we sought a privileged position in in society in order to control the behaviors of others. The establishment of  privileged position has caused a pendulum swing and we are, perhaps, witnessing that swing going in the opposite direction.

But we should note that there is a dualism that I don't think is Biblical to magnify the internal and individual struggles we have with sin over the external and corporate struggles. We sin as individuals and in groups. The root cause for both is sin. But too many times, it is only the internal struggles against sin that  deemed as being worthy of our attention. Our complicity in the corporate sins of the society or the state are given a hall pass. And yet those sins include violating the commandments prohibiting murder and theft.

--------------

Oct 4

To R. Scott Clark and his Heidelblog quote on how the Law of Moses is an example of natural law. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Such brings up a dilemma. On the one hand we declare that the Law's, which was the Law of Moses, first purpose is to show us our sin. On the other hand, some religiously Conservative Christians believe that the civil authorities have a responsibility for enforcing natural law. What the follows the conjunction of these two statements is the incarceration of all.


---------------

Oct 6

To Joe Carter and his comparison between "soviet-style" food banks vs a free market approach to running food banks. This appeared in the Acton blog.

A couple of problems exist in this article. First, the alleged soviet-style of food banks was never verified by being described. Second, what is described as a free market system is more of a lottery system than a free market system.

But perhaps the biggest problem with this article is that it doesn't address the subject of what kind of market produced the need for food banks in the first place.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 2, 2015

 The presence of only two comments here is the result of fewer blogs blocking my comments. This is a good thing though it can reduce the content for this blogpost series.

August 26

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Robert George stating that because of the recent Supreme court decision on marriage, we should expect multiple partner marriages in the future. This appeared on Heidelblog.

The problem with the above assessment is that it reduces marriage, heterosexual or same-sex, to just one facet. Marriage as recognized by the State involves much more. For it involves the complete union of two people including in terms of physical, legal, and property. In addition, marriage between two people involves equality since it is the complete union, not just physical, of what two people have and are. Polygamy and polyamory do not include that kind of union. In fact, laws would have to be rewritten to address the complexity of property ownership and division as well as parental and legal responsibilities.

Now because no complete union by both parties can be undertaken in any kind of multiple partner marriage, the state's legitimate concern with equality comes into play. This concern for equality and the protection of those who would be treated less than equal implies that same-sex marriage has much more in common with heterosexual marriage than multiple partner marriages do.

When marriage is reduced to just its reproductive aspects, then we must ask if the state has the right to regulate any couple's decision to have children? Or should the state prohibit the marriages of those who cannot have children together? Note that with the latter question, both heterosexual and same-sex couples are affected. For example, I cannot reproduce because of cancer surgery. Now suppose I become a widower and then take another wife. If marriage is reduced to its reproductive aspects, should the state have the right to prohibit me from being married? Or if marriage is reduced to its reproductive aspects, then does the state have the right to force me to marry so that I may provide children for society?

Unfortunately,  the above blogpost is simply a slippery slope argument that works only with an oversimplified view of marriage. And the purpose of the oversimplification is to make it appear that same-sex marriages have more in common with marriages involving multiple partners than they do with heterosexual marriages. And, again, that case can only be made when marriage is oversimplified to the sexual-romantic relationship while ignoring the union of a couple in other spheres of life including those which the state must address. Marriage to the state involves much more than the sexual-romantic fulfillment of the couple involved. And proof of that can be seen in its laws that involve marriage.
----------------

Sept 1

To Marc Vander Maas and his blogpost consisting of a video that introduces a book that describes how poverty of the nations can be solved. The comment below addresses the talk given by Wayne Grudem in this video. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Having read Grudem's book on politics, it is unfortunate that his comments here do not disappoint. That is because just as Grudem did not display any kind of adequate knowledge of the Left in that book. This might be because his book was designed to provide an apologetic for why Christians could continue to be political conservatives. Likewise here, he reduces the Left, without naming them, to that of charitable giving to nations in need as its solution to poverty, but who produce dependency instead. In reality, the Left believes that one of the means by which we can end poverty is found in the redistribution of power, not just wealth.

Now while Grudem warns us not reduce economics to per capita income, something all should agree on, but he virtually performs that reductionism on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as he states that that is the key to bringing nations out of poverty.

In addition, Grudem states that complaining about how exploitation has held a nation back is like crying over spilled milk. One must forget that and move on to focusing on increasing the nations's GDP. But here is a question for Grudem: What if the exploitation is continuing? Should we still regard complaining about it as crying over spilled milk? We could also ask if we should complain if past exploitation has produced such crippling effects that present economic growth is still impossible.

Grudem's reductionism continues as he talks about the haves and have nots of countries. The haves are focusing on increasing their GDP.  He failed to mention how such a focus worked in China. For such a focus has led to sweatshop labor and horrific environmental problems.  See, just focusing on increasing one's GDP without regard to how it is achieved, especially when GDP relies on exploitation, can be misleading. We should note that our economy got its start by relying on exploitation too as we took land from the Indians and then enslaved Blacks both before and after the Civil War. The enslavement after the war occurred during Jim Crow when many Blacks were jailed and their labor in prison was used to increase our nation's GDP.

As Grudem shows a map of the nations that are doing well, his disregard for crying over the spilled milk of history continues as he forgets to mention that many of today's prosperous nations were, and few are still, empires. And that includes the United States. He forgets to mention China's controlled economy when celebrating its economic growth. He mentions India as a positive example, but fails to mention the suicides committed by  hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers. He mentions Chile, but fails to mention how Chile got its start in the Free Market. It did so by the US supporting and enabling a military coup which led to the rule of Pinochet who was a murderous tyrant and was indicted for crimes against humanity. And while he rules out economies that redistribute wealth, such redistribution actually helped Norway become a prosperous nation. He also fails to mention that South Korea used protectionism, which is against Free Market principles, a practice used by many wealthy nations, to enable its industrialization.

At the same time, Grudem briefly describes the plight of poorer nations like many African nations and also Haiti. He states that foreign aid to these nations usually increases governmental corruption. This is true, But he neglects to mention how other nations also increase governmental corruption and even civil wars in Africa by how they are exploited for their natural resources ( BBC on Exploitation and Video Interview on Film About Colonialism  ). Again, what do you say about exploitation when it continues, when it is not just in the past?

And one only needs to read about the history of Haiti to realize that foreign intervention is the real reason why Haiti is so poor today.

As a theologian, Grudem fails because he only sees giving aid to the poor as an act of charity. In reality, giving aid to the poor is both an act of charity and of justice. This is why the Israelites were instructed on how to harvest their crops so that there were left overs for those in need. This says something to us today about what we owe those in need.

Here is the short of it. Grudem's presentation relies heavily on selectivity. That is true of the economies of  poor nations he uses as negative examples as well as the economies of nations he uses as positive examples. Now to be fair, this presentation was to introduce a book he co-authored with Barry Asmus and there might be places in that book that addresses some of the short comings mentioned here. All that can be mentioned here is the presentation. And considering the history of Free Market Fundamentalism and Neoliberal Capitalism, there is something not up front about Grudem's presentation.
 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 29, 2015

July 21

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote that claims that the Left's Identity politics has control over all of society's driving institutions including all parts of the government and the media and thus blames it for closing American minds as well as a host of other problems. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Bloom was against indifference. But the cause for indifference when he expressed his concerns is not at work today. Rather, what is causing indifference is more accurately identified by Francis Schaeffer. To Schaeffer, the threat of the day consisted of two idols: personal peace and prosperity. The first idol said was defined as one not caring about those who are suffering whether they were neighbors or the one suffering lived on the other side of the globe. These second idol was prosperity itself. King, whether knowingly or not, agreed with Schaeffer about the second idol. For King stated that as long as we are more concerned about profits, gadgets, and property rights, we are a 'thing-oriented society' rather than a 'person-oriented society.' And for as long as we are the latter, the triplets of racism, materialism, and war could not be undone. We should note that for King, the reference to materialism was really a reference to a multisided object which had materials on one side and economic exploitation on another side.

Now I write the above because from my 19 and 1/2 years experience of teaching in college, it is not leftist faculty who are closing the American mind in college. It the ever increasing control exercised by administration who are businessfying their institutions so that it can tell faculty that students are customers in an effort to control to educational process. And part of the businessfication of college also includes with that course offering emphasis on vocational training and decline in the offering of liberal arts majors. The more businessfied college becomes, the more students are pushed in the direction of being thing-oriented rather than person-oriented.

The above blogpost quote seems to be nothing more than a lamenting of the loss of privilege by a group eager to scapegoat its replacement for all of today's troubles, which was done in the article cited. But since their scapegoat no longer is in the driver's seat in colleges today, the charges ends up being empty. That is not to say that there are no abuses from the PC crowd, there are. It is to say that the effects those problems have are being exaggerated without any due reference to the need for a PC crowd and what it gets right. So while the above blogpost quote wants to target the elite universities, assuming that it accurately portrays them, what about the all of the other colleges that produced the vast majority of graduates and thus having at least potentially a greater influence over society?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 27

To William Doino and his blogpost about the errors of Liberation Theology. This appeared on the First Things blog.

What I find disturbing here is how easily Marxism is painted with a single brush. In addition, there is the assertion here that Christians should have nothing to do with Marxism. At the same time, while acknowledging the hardships and injustices to which Liberation Theologians were responding, nothing is said about the Capitalist system that produced such troubles nor was anything said about who was supporting the paramilitary troops who so persecuted Liberation Theologians.

There is no contradiction between agreeing with Marx's analysis of Capitalism and Christianity. The problems with Marx really lie in his solutions. But Christians can adapt some of those solutions and there is an important reason why we should. The exploitations that are inherent in Capitalism demands that we seriously learn from its critics, like Marxism. Martin Luther King Jr., who had no high regard for the Soviet Union's Communism still understood that it provided a corrective to Capitalism's overemphasis on both the individual and its own promotion of materialism. And we should note here that much of the exploitation that is such a part of Capitalism is because of its dependence on and promotion of the consolidation of wealth and thus power. That oppression from an upper class, though not being the only source for conflict between people, plays a predominant role in the history of mankind. Thus the redistribution of power first and wealth second cannot only provide some structural safeguards from Capitalism's exploitation of people and the environment, it can also put people in the position where they must act more conscientiously toward others.

We should note here that one of Martin Luther King's mistakes in judging Marxism was that he equated what Lenin and Stalin created in the Soviet Union was the epitome of Marxism. Too many Marxists, even from the time of Lenin, opposed that form of Marxism and were more than eager to distance Lenin from Marx. Whether one agrees with their assessments of the differences between Lenin and Marx is not the issue; the point is that Marxism is not some monolith that will forever have the same relationship with Christianity.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 28

To Ryan T. Anderson and his blogpost that warns us that religious liberties are being threatened by the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage and America's changing values. This appeared on the Firstthings website

Ok, let's return to the good ole days of America's founding so we can reacquire what our founders had. Of course, if you were Black, Native American, or a woman, the Biblical values recognized back then would subject you to the White man. And the Constitution and other documents would tell you that you would not be subjected to just any White man, you would fall under the reign of White men who were were landowners.

Of course, things changed in this country but not because we stayed with those original Biblical values. Though we fought a war to eliminate slavery, Jim Crow ensured that we would have an ordered liberty. And religious values were used to support that hierarchy. A similar hierarchy existed with regard to women. And what emancipated them were the same religious liberties that enslaved them--not. So perhaps those two examples are proof for some that the same religious values that moved our society to once criminalize and now persecute those who have a different sexual orientation could never guarantee the religious liberties of those same people who have been marginalized because of their sexual orientation. Of course, bakers florists and photographers say thank you to those same values.

Finally, we need to see why some push for limited government. For those who favor limited government know that democracy is a form of government. So if one promotes limited government, one also promotes a limited democracy. And when democracy is limited, that is when collective self-governance is limited, then power is procured by elites in the private sector with no one strong enough to stop them. In fact, with the lack of either regulation itself or the enforcement of regulations, what has arisen are financial institutions that are too big to control. It is here that government is like love in one way: size doesn't matter, fidelity does. When wealth and power are allowed to consolidate in elite portions of the private sector and the voting public becomes apathetic to what its government is doing, government naturally becomes unfaithful and thus it can use its great power to either rule over or support wealth and power from the private sector, or, if it is small, it become impotent to handle the challenges presented by elite sectors from the public sector.

 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------





The First Things Blog had put a 'Removed' notice next to the comment below.  Some time after that they reversed that decision and published it.
 
To Carl Trueman and his blogpost about finding a Calvary Option to responding to the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. His option basically said that we should live our Christian lives the way we were before the decision. This appeared in the First Things blog.

Carl,
there are some things in your life that shouldn't change. The life you have with the Church and your wife should remain. But here are some things that should change. Just as you have warned us against same-sex marriage, you should also preach against economic exploitation, the destruction of the environment, and the reliance on militarism and war.

Why should you change in the ways suggested above? Because real Christians are victims of economic exploitation, destruction of the environment, and the willingness to rely on militarism and war. But not only that, real sinners, including some Christians, are perpetrators of economic exploitation, destruction of the environment, and the willingness to rely on militarism and war. So if you add to your preaching, challenges against economic exploitation, destruction to the environment, and the reliance on militarism and war, perhaps your opposition to same-sex marriage will be interpreted differently by those outside the Church. So all you need to change is the scope of your ministry.

 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on the certainty that entrepreneurs can rescue communities by their economic dynamics. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Markets are one place where value is created. And that slices several ways. First, there are other places where value is created because not all value is monetary. In addition, the markets can be manipulated to serve a few rather than many. Third, the overall system itself determines value and that isn't always a good thing.

Neither people nor products shouldn be reduced to monetary value. Yes, in an age where greed reigns,  the monetary values that markets produce carry much weight. But society can assign other values besides monetary value. Societies can recognize the intrinsic value of each person and thus offer safety nets to those who aren't producing an adequate value to the markets. When the only value people and things have is the monetary value from the markets, then we've seen the falling of the shroud of the love of money.

That markets can be manipulated is a given. That they are manipulated to give some a competitive advantage over others to the extent that the financial survival of others is threatened is ominous.  And we should note that not all manipulation practiced by the markets is illegal. For example, when globalization was applied to the labor force of different kinds of industries, such as the textile industry, the supply of workers increased dramatically thus cutting the cost of that labor. Sweatshop labor, both here and abroad, was a result of the globalization. And the market responded by providing cheaper prices for some clothing. But invisible people paid the cost for those lower prices.

We should also note that when the labor force for other industries was globalized, continued offshoring was the result. This increased the supply of low skilled labor domestically had a predictable result of freezing or even lowering wages for low skilled employees. BTW, owners of different industries are the ones who benefited the most from this globalization. So did those consumers whose jobs were neither offshored nor were impacted by lower wages. So when labor for certain industries was globalized, the value for same work as before was reassigned a lower value by the same markets being exalted here.

Finally, we need to address the system. Marx noted that the labor power of wage earners had become a commodity just as much as raw material and other commodities used in production were. This objectified the wage earner and made him/her disposable since a business could always replace the wage earners with new ones who were willing to work for less. What also became disposable were both the families of the wage earners as well as their communities because both were dependent on what the wage earner made. If we add to that mix that Capitalism is always changing the means of production, this puts many wage earners at risk in becoming surplus people in society --the term 'surplus people,' if memory serves, comes from Naomi Klein.

Yes, we want people to be productive and to earn good pay. However, if the system is designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of many others, then many entrepreneurial ventures can only bring disillusionment. And this will continue to be the case for long as the market value of people and things is the only pertinent value recognized by society. And that the system is designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of many others is easily shown by determining who loses that which has the most critical value during our economic busts and who gains the most wealth during our economic recoveries.
 

ONIM For November 17, 2014

Christian News

• Texas A&M Students Drown Out Angry Westboro Protesters With 'Yell Practice' -- Yahoo News
• 'They're Poisoning Us'. How Religious Leaders Are Hindering Vaccination Programmes Across The World -- Christian Today (UK)
• Increased Pressure On Chinese Christians To Conform To Communism -- Christian Today (UK)
• Seven Surprising Things Bono Has Said About Jesus -- Christian Today (UK)
• Philip Yancey: Be Pioneers Of Grace In A Post Christian America -- Christianity Today
• Kenya Bans New Churches Amid 'Miracle Faking Spree' -- Christianity Today
• Segregated Surveys: How Politics Keeps Evangelicals White -- Christianity Today
• 10 Reasons Why Friends And Family Struggle To Believe The Gospel -- The Christian Post
• Pope Says Euthanasia Is 'Sin Against God;' Blasts Abortion And Stem-Cell Research -- The Christian Post
• Court Rejects Atheists' Lawsuit Against Pastors' Tax-Free Housing Allowance -- The Christian Post
• Pastor Of Kentucky Church Severed From Baptists Over LGBT Inclusion -- Religion Dispatches
• Fired GTS Professors Go Back To Work For Now -- Religion Dispatches
• Christian Morality Vs The Free Market: The Constants Of A Conservative -- Religion Dispatches

World News

• Michael Brown's Parents To Testify Before UN About Ferguson Police Violence -- The Guardian
• Parents Of Slain Missouri Teen Return Home After U.N. Testimony -- Yahoo News
• Highway Seizure In Iowa Fuels Debate About Asset-Forfeiture Laws -- The Washington Post
• Massive Social Strikes Paralyze Italian Cities -- Revolution News
• Video: Routine Exchange On A Bus Reveals Racism Embedded Within Jewish Israeli Society -- Mondoweiss
• Gas Drillers Pumped $49 Million Into Pa. Politics Between 2007-2014 -- Penn Live
• Fearing Bombs That Can Pick Whom To Kill -- New York Times
• Why Doesn't The US Observe Armistice Day? We're More Comfortable With War Than Peace -- The Guardian
• Federal Judge Guts The Nationwide Ban On Housing Discrimination -- Portside
• Why Catcalling Guys And Guys Defending Catcalling Guys Are Wrong -- JohnPavlovitz.Com
• How The West Connives In The Ethnic-Cleansing Of Jerusalem -- Middle East Eye
• Netanyahu Calls For Stripping Palestinian-Israelis Of Citizenship -- Informed Comment
• Walmart Workers Ramp Up Protests For Black Friday -- ZNet
• Western Leaders Confront Putin At G20 With Threat Of More Sanctions -- Yahoo News
•  Historic $15 Minimum Wage Agreement Reached In Oregon -- AFSCME
• Detroit Water Shutoffs Will Continue Through Winter -- MLive
• Israel's Proposed Jewish Nation-State Law Hits Hurdle -- Yahoo News
• After Israel-Gaza Conflict, Growing Anti-Semitism On US College Campuses -- International Business Times

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• The Truth About Wars -- New York Times
• "Prison Inflicts Mass Violence": Bill Ayers Interviews Maya Schenwar -- Truthout
• End The Killing Of Students Now -- ZNet
• Corporate Business Models Are Hurting American Universities -- ZNet

Reviewing The Cultural Case Of Capitalism Part 11 Of 12

In this week's episode, Jonathan Witt revealss what he regards as the greatest freedom of all. It seems that he believes that economic freedom is the most important one. Why say this?

Note his first paragraph:

Economic freedom does generate certain challenges. The wealth that free economies are so effective at creating brings with it temptation. Wealth can tempt us to depend on our riches rather than on God. The temptation can be resisted, as we see with wealthy biblical characters like Abraham and Job. But it’s a challenge the church should be mindful of, helping its members cultivate a balanced view of money and of our responsibility and opportunities as stewards of the things God has given us.

We should then read the next paragraph about the challenges economic freedom presents to the community:

The free society also can be hard on communities, since the free enterprise system makes for such a mobile society. Michael Miller talks about this: the opportunities and demands generated by a complex market economy mean that people often end up moving far away from their childhood homes and the network of relationships that surrounded that home. In seeking to meet this challenge, we need to ask ourselves what strategies would effectively address the problem, and are there well-intended policies that are likely to make the problem worse. In essence, we need to exercise the virtue of prudence.

Note the interchangeability of terms between 'free society' and 'free enterprise system.' They are used synonymously.  In addition, note whose responsibility it is to adapt. We are to respond to the challenges that economic freedom presents to our lives but never the other way around. It is as if we live to serve the economy rather than the economy being there to serve all of the people. Martin Luther King Jr. would call this emphasis on the economy a part of a thing-oriented society.

And we should note what economic freedom actually means. Though not defined here, what economic freedom means is that, outside of avoiding corruption and the abuse of others, businesses have no social responsibilities. Economic freedom places business above democracy. Thus, people cannot use the democratic process to tell business how it should live in their communities and what social obligations it should have. And this is despite the fact that valid business activities have significant effects on the communities in which they reside. In addition, in many instances, business is given the privilege to define what is abuse. This is especially true when it comes to the Global Warming and the Climate Science debate. The most oft used objection to following the advice of vast majority of Climate Scientists is that it would lead to economic hardship. And what follows, though it shouldn't, is a denial of Global Warming because of the economic implications of an appropriate response.

So the brunt of the article is that we should adapt to economic freedom rather than making adaptation a two-way street. But there is something else we should note about economic freedom. The more wealth and property one has, the more freedom one has. We should note that the financial world has a one dollar-one vote relationship. There is no equality in this economic freedom. There is the ability to consolidate wealth and since power follows wealth, to consolidate power as well. So one wonders if we should be talking about economic privilege instead of economic freedom.

This brings us back to the first review in this series (click here). This blog stated that a primary indicator we have for measuring tyranny can be found in the presence or absence of democracy. The less democracy there is, the more elite centered rule we have  whether it is from the private or public sectors. A secondary indicator for tyranny can be found in how much individual ownership rights exist in the economy over and against collective ownership. Witt's view of economic freedom both consolidates power by consolidating wealth and denies collective ownership. And that denial is regardless of the interdependencies that exist in the system and society. So can we expect a growth in tyranny here?

A way to answer that question is to look at the facts on the ground. We still have quite a few freedoms. But these freedoms are mostly individual freedoms. What about the freedom of people to determine what kind of society we will live in. This freedom is a group freedom, not an individual freedom, and is commonly referred to as democracy. There we find that though we vote in our elected officials, these same officials obey the mandates of those who make the biggest contributions. As a result, banks and financial institutions can commit fraud and other felonies with criminal impunity while the rest of us cannot. We find that energy companies can also escape criminal prosecution when they harm the environment and they can sometimes even avoid impunity from civil suits too  regardless of the impact of their actions. We find that those with the most wealth have the most pull in writing the laws of this country. We find that many corporations can supplement their payroll with government assistance programs while not paying their fair share in taxes. And what about the foreign military aid where public funds are paid directly to our weapons manufacturers who in turn send equipment and weapons to foreign countries.

In the meantime, most of us comply because our remaining freedoms are found either in meaningless consumption or by vicariously living through the rich and famous. Many of us have given up on being able to experience group freedom (a.k.a., democracy). That last point is indicated by our passion for sports according to Noam Chomsky (click here). 

The facts on the ground show that we are called to make room for the economic freedom while economic freedom is not called recognize us. Perhaps this is why Witt calls on communities to do more of the patching up of problems. For he paraphrases Robert Nisbet saying:

greater centralized political authority and social safety net spending beyond a certain minimal level actually begin to undermine civil institutions and community, since people depend less and less on their family and community bonds and more and more on state-sponsored humanitarian assistance.

He adds that the solution is not found in big government, democratic or not. He cites Tocqueville in associating 'soft despotism' with too much government care resulting in the people becoming sheep with the government as their shepherd. 

But what Witt doesn't cover here is that community wounds can be deep enough so as to make any group of locals impotent in responding to the challenges of economic freedom. And it is in those unhealed wounds where we see real tyranny. In addition, by calling the people sheep and the government a shepherd, Witt divorces the government from the people regardless of how representative of the people the government is. This is a common approach of American Conservatives who are very individualistic. The problem with overemphasizing individualism, as Martin Luther King Jr. noted in his writings, is that it denies that life is social.

With Witt's divorcing of government from the people, not that government has not often tried to do that itself, we see that if there is to be a consolidation of power, it will be found in the private sector of wealthy elites where we go from a one person-one vote system to a one-dollar-one vote system. 

Finally, when Witt says that the answer is not found in government, since democracy can be a form of government, he is also saying that the answer is not found in democracy. Rather, according to Witt, the answer is to be found in individuals, civic groups, and communities, in other words volunteers, regardless of how they have been affected by economic freedom. Perhaps a reason why Witt thinks this way is because only democracy can have a chance at rivaling the power of economic freedom. Why? Because democracy includes the collection of communities working together rather than isolated communities working separately. What is the old saying? "United we stand, ...

Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 9 Of 12

In this week's episode of this blog's review of Jonathan Witt's A Cultural Case For Capitalism, we actually hit an agreement. But one has to wade through some stuff before getting there. So following the work before pleasure ethic, we will hit the disagreements first.

Witt starts this episode with an error by saying:

Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, details how the growth of government-corporate cronyism during the past 120 or so years has been largely a phenomenon of the socialist left.

The error is the association being made between corporations aided by government and socialism. Of course he is citing Goldberg here, but repeating an error is still an error. The error here is the conservative insistence that big government = socialism. Thus, regardless of the driving force behind any form of big government, conservatives, such as Goldberg and Witt, conflate all big government under the label of socialism. 

Such a mix is often used to link Nazism and Fascism with the Socialism of the Soviet Union. But just as we should note that many Socialists never saw the old Soviet Union as being socialist because its workers lost control to Lenin's vanguard, we should realize that there was another key distinction between Nazism and Fascism on one hand, and Socialism and Communism on the other. The former has business and industrial leaders as a driving force if not its primary support while the latter did not. Like Nazism and Fascism, the Socialism and Communism of the Soviet Union had elite centered rule. The difference was that, despite not representing the workers, it was not supported by business. And if you go to Marx, you will see that he emphasized what he called the proletariate dictatorship. Such a dictatorship, which is actually a partial democracy, was not in control over the Soviet Union. These details are omitted by many conservatives in order to associate both Nazism and Fascism with Socialism and Communism.

So if we brush aside the misnomer,  we get an idea of what Witt has been saying for the past few episodes: using government to gain a competitive advantage is bad while, from his praise for the American Tobacco Company and his neglecting to mention its violation of antitrust laws and the its use of a secret deal with another business to dominate the market (click here to see the previous review), businesses using other businesses to gain a competitive advantage is kosher.

Certainly, the use of government by a business to gain a competitive advantage over other businesses that are under the jurisdiction of the same government is unfair. But governments enabling domestic businesses to grow through protectionism is a long established practice that has served well the economies of many countries. Its abuses in Mercantilism were objected to by Adam Smith. But government does have the right to protect the businesses of its citizens from outside threats. Such protection allows varied domestic economic sectors to grow enabling economic diversification and eventual self-sufficiency. And this is being mentioned because this is what Witt proceeds to criticize part of big government socialism. We might also add that the legitimate use of protectionism is counted as heresy by those advocating the new "comparative advantage" in which what a country can produce is determined solely by how its products best serve the outside world, that is the Global Free Market. Such makes the smaller economies more dependent on the larger economies and it primarily benefits the elite investor class.

Witt goes on to say how our government has, through "regulations and market manipulations," helped corporate agriculture at the expense of family farms. He rightly calls this relationship between government and corporate agriculture, "Crony Capitalism," and rightly protests it--thus our agreement. But we should note the following:

1. With the competitive nature of an unadulterated Free Market, the survival of any family farm was never guaranteed
2. That his blaming of the government and its actions for the failure of the family farm oversimplifies the situation
3. He never considers that crony Crony Capitalism could be a natural outgrowth of the Free Market.

We should note regarding the last point, that what's important to the Free Market as an institution may not be what's important to the Free Market's participants. For example, competition is important to a functioning Free Market so that it can serve the needs and wants of both businesses and consumers. Thus, when any business becomes too big so that competition is significantly reduced, regardless of whether the business relied on government help in growing, that business is a threat to the Free Market as an institution. 

But note what is important to the participants of the Free Market. Surely competition is their source of energy, but the sole concern of any business in the Free Market is self-interest and its sole ethic is maximizing profits. So how does the combination of self-interest and maximizing profit not try to eliminate competition? And as we mentioned before, this doing away with competition can be accomplished with or without the help of government. So while Jonathan Witt somewhat indicates that the family farm, domestic and foreign, is a rival of corporate agriculture, he fails to see that businesses can eradicate their competition even without without the help of government as seen in the history of the American Tobacco Company (again, click here to see the review of part 8 of this series).

Rather than saying that Jonathan Witt's Free Market is not being shot by a gun it didn't see, we should say that the Free Market is shooting itself with its own gun as Witt fails to see that the gun has no safety. Witt's scapegoating of big government's intrusion into the Free Market is not only stated so that we will object to all government interventions into the economy, it is described in a way so that we become unaware of the dangers posed by the Free Market itself. So while Witt claims that government's interference with private property was the problem, the real culprit was a natural part of the Free Market: self-interest and the maximization of profits.

In the end, Witt unconsciously supports that which creates what he fears and abhors: Crony Capitalism. By declaring that big government is the problem, he conflates functioning democracies with elite centered rule. Here, he implies that both should have the same limitations because it is only the size of government that matters. But by fleeing democracy, he runs into the waiting arms of elite centered rule private sector style. And it is this rule that looks to eliminate competition in the Free Market regardless of what government does. 

Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 8 Of 12

In this week's episode of Jonathan Witt's A Cultural Case For Capitalism, Witt wants to draw a sharp distinction between the Free Market and Crony Capitalism. In addition, he wants to tout the achievements of the global market that, is in large part, a result of Crony Capitalism. It's as if he wants it both ways.

Again, Witt's target is Wendell Berry because of Berry's criticisms of Capitalism. We should note that Witt does appreciate some of what Berry says. However, Witt believes that Berry's writings approaches "land idolatry," something we should keep in mind for later, and it is, as written above, that Witt believes Berry can no longer distinguish between "free economies" and Crony Capitalism. Crony Capitalism is where competitive advantages in business comes from a collusion between those in the private and public sectors. This is why Witt presents as an alternative "the American Experiment of broad economic freedoms and limited government." 

One problem with Witt's solution is that this American Experiment contained neither. We should note that many American based corporations were able to establish themselves because of government provided protectionism and maintain themselves or grow because of State Capitalism--which is where a significant part of the business comes from the state. Another problem with Witt's solution is that his support for "limited government" practically conflates democratic governments with elite centered governments by aiming to limit all of them without distinction. This not only limits the power democracy can have in society, it fails to eliminate elite centered rule because such rule stems from power and power is not limited to those who have authority. Power is equated with having the ability to make changes whether one has the governmental authority or not.

And in fact, Witt seems to be targeting democracy when speaking about limiting government. For when Witt rightly criticizes Crony Capitalism, he neglects to tell us that unfair advantages in the Free Market can be gained through secret deals between businesses and elites in the private sector. His example of the American Tobacco Company, having morphed into the Tobacco Trust, provides such a example of that happening. In Part 7 of A Cultural Case For Capitalism, Witt tells the story of the founder of the American Tobacco Company, James Buchanan Duke, and how he "aggressively expanded" the new technology of a cigarette rolling machine invented by James Bonsack. Hidden behind the phrase "aggressively expanded" is the fact that a secret deal between the two, which included diminishing royalties, gave Duke a price advantage over other companies which made it necessary for other companies to eventually join Duke's group to survive.  ¹ Eventually, his Tobacco Trust was found to be in violation of antitrust laws and was ordered to break up. ²

If anyone wants to claim that the government's use of antitrust laws in principle is an example of government overreach, he/she will have to argue with one of the economic heros of the modern Free Market and of those, like Witt, who write at the Acton blog, Milton Friedman. For it was Friedman who said that there are two threats to the Free Market: government and businesses. And he added that it is government's responsibility to the Free Market to prevent any business from gaining unfair advantages that would reduce competition.

So what we have here with Witt's parts 7 and 8 of A Cultural Case For Capitalism is a double standard where if businesses gain a competition destroying advantage through government favors, it is called Crony Capitalism. But if there is collusion between businesses to gain the same kind of advantage, it is used as a positive example of building a company. Again with the emphasis on limited government regardless of whether it is democratic, this points to Witt favoring elite centered rule with the real power resting with non-elected elites from the private sector. 

Now we must deal with Witt's endorsement of the global economy and large corporations. Here, Witt points to a one factor analysis--that the current economy has reduced abject poverty in the world. Witt does acknowledge corporate abuses in this but praises the result in a way that suggests that the ends justify the means. His one factor analysis also suggests that, like what he accuses Berry of, he has submitted to an idolatry--it is the love of money.

So here, we really need to ask critical questions about this victory which Witt so praises. We need to ask how much misery has actually been reduced by this global economy when some countries are seeing a reduction in the number of people in the middle class because more are approaching poverty and how much misery is being alleviated by the reduction Witt brags about. We might also ask about other costs such as damage to the environment, exploitive working conditions, and a loss of freedom along with a reduction in reliance on democratic procedures.

We might also want to look at the specifics of the numbers themselves. When I have seen these kind of claims, most of the reduction of those living in such poverty are from Asia. And while a substantial number of them come from India where free trade measures have moved tens of thousands of Indian farmers to commit suicide due to debt, another significant number of people being raised out of "extreme poverty" come from China. And the problems with using numbers from China are multiple. 

The first problem with using China is that, because of the global economy, China has suffered severe environment damage such as dramatic increases in air pollution. Second, because of this global economy, some workers are pressured into accepting sweatshop labor conditions for the privilege of working and being raised out of extreme poverty while others lose their jobs. And finally, one cannot attribute China's improved numbers to the Free Market since their market is significantly controlled by the State. So to include China's numbers in with the statistics being used to make claims about the Free Market reducing world poverty is deceptive at best.

What we see with Witt's new global, free economy are inconsistencies along with partial information used to obscure its complete impact on the world. But most of all, this economy is reducing the control people have over their lives by shrinking democracy and shifting that control to elites in the private sector. And I write this as someone who views Wendell Berry's alternatives to Capitalism as being impractical. 

References
1.  Brandt, Alan M.: The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America, p. 29. Basic Books, 2007 cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tobacco_Company

and 

https://www.tracy.k12.ca.us/sites/rlee/Shared Documents/History of the Americas II/Industrial America Unit/Industrialist Biographies/Duke Bio 2007.pdf

 

2.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tobacco_Company  

Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 7 Of 12

In this week's episode of Jonathan Witt's A Cultural Case For Capitalism, Witt wants to answer the question of what Capitalism has done for us. And though he doesn't fully accomplish that task, he uses a sour grapes story to introduce the subject and makes at least one disturbing revelation about why he so favors Capitalism.

The sour grapes story Witt uses comes from Wendell Berry who is a neo-agrarian supporter. Berry is down on capitalism because of how his grandfather with his tobacco farm faired in a time when the American Tobacco Company dominated the scene by eliminating all competitors. Berry blames Capitalism via American Tobacco Company's monopoly for his grandfather's financial hardships because once establishing a monopoly, this company set the prices so low that Berry's grandfather could not make decent money from his tobacco crops. 

Witt wants to set the record straight that it was not Capitalism's fault. And though Witt makes a couple of valid points to contest Berry's claims, the direction Witt takes us is still unsettling. We won't go through his whole argument here, but we should note that Witt faults Berry for not protesting the product, which were cigarettes, being made. Rather Berry focussed on Capitalism. Witt faults Berry's grandfather's choices and the government for the grandfather's economic woes. This is because his grandfather's choice of crop to farm caught up to demand and the government instituted policies that hurt the market price of cigarettes.  

But Witt goes beyond that. Witt defends the monopoly and the profit policies pursued by the tobacco company. Witt wants to answer the question asked at the beginning: What has Capitalism ever done for us. He answers the question by describing how this particular tobacco company contributed to the economy. It contributed by producing an affordable product and by expanding tobacco farming in the region. So with results like that Witt asks, how could one fault either the tobacco company or the kind of capitalism it practiced?

We should note here that Witt has his own Wendell Berry moment of faulting the wrong thing. For while Witt finds fault with how Berry blamed capitalism and not cigarettes, he celebrates the establishment of a monopoly. This wrong, or at least inconsistent, for Witt to do. Why? It is because he believes in the free market and a free market relies on competition. But competition does not exist when a monopoly is in place--even Milton Friedman would acknowledge this. Thus, though a market for making cigarettes existed during Berry's grandfather's farming days, it wasn't a free market for the farmers. 

So it seems that having a free market isn't as important to Witt as he claims (he mentions "free market" in at least parts 1, 2, and 8 of this series). What is important is that business is in control of the market. This takes us back to our opening diagram (pictured below).

American Capitalism Today

By rejecting government, provided that Witt does not believe businesses should be run democratically, his acceptance of a business dominated market means that he is in favor of a business Elite Centered rule--and that rule is not just an economic one. And it appears that Witt recognizes the founder of the American Tobacco Company as having sole ownership rights of the company, since he found it, with no ownership considerations being granted to the farmers though they supplied the raw material for his business. Rather, according to Witt, these farmers are either to be grateful for the tobacco company doing business with them and expanding the number of farms, including the farmers who did not do well, or produce another crop. This, of course, provides further confirmation that Witt's views are in quadrant #3. And we should note that the further down in quadrant #3 one goes, the more tyranny will be practiced. In addition, the further to the left one goes in quadrant #3, the more wealth disparity will be seen (click here for the original explanation). This point about wealth disparity is what Berry is protesting in the first place.

But there is a more important observation to be made here. That observation revolves around the measurements Witt uses to justify a business or even economic system. To Witt, it is all about numbers. If a business or system is lowering the price of a product and expanding the number of employees, as the tobacco company referenced in this blogpost by Witt did, then no further questions are to be asked. We don't consider Berry's concerns about inadequate compensation for his grandfather's crops because Witt has already addressed them by blaming the farmers for their choices and the government for intervening. We simply look at the lower prices the consumers pay as well as the expansion in the number of tobacco farms. And to Witt, this is how Capitalism is to be judged. Capitalism is to be judged by the "prosperity" it brings to a select group of stakeholders.

Is it any wonder then that Martin Luther King made the following assessment about Capitalism while he was comparing it to Marxism and socialism? King said the following (click here for the source):

thus capitalism can lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the materialism taught by communism 

When numbers, especially those related to consumption and wealth for some, are the only measurement used to determine the value of Capitalism, then King's analysis becomes inescapable. This is especially true because negative outcomes for non-select stakeholders are so easily swept away by the favorable numbers. This is when we are told no further questions are to be asked. The "no further questions" would concern themselves with fairness and morality for all stakeholders as well as show concern for the environment. But using just numbers, and carefully selected ones at that, is the standard operating method for many who justify and promote Capitalism. It isn't that numbers themselves which is the problem; it is that they don't tell the whole story.

This is the direction we are heading for with Capitalism. It is first Elite Centered where democracy is shunned in favor of control by the wealthy from the private sector. Then collective ownership rights are also spurned regardless of the inter-dependencies involved in a business or the economic system as a whole. Such a combination promotes both a wide wealth disparity and tyranny. And we will note that tyranny can come from the private sector as well as the public one. This is all done in the name of increased prosperity but for select groups. And as increased prosperity either trumps fairness and morals or makes them moot, materialism, rather than human values, become dominant in assessing systems. With all of that being where Witt is taking us, it is ironic that Witt, and others like him, claim to have the moral high ground over others who disagree. Then again, maybe it isn't ironic, perhaps it is just part of the necessary marketing Capitalism uses to retain customers despite the sounds of suffering and discontent.