Kingdom Economics October 24, 2007
Posted by Zack in Missouri , trackbackI’m reading Brian McLaren’s new book Everything Must Change—and oh it’s just so fascinating how history works.
- Christians invent socialism.
- Then socialists turn their backs on Christianity.
- Then the idea of socialism is thrown into the dust bin of history, and centuries-worth of socialist critical thinking about capitalism is lost.
- And now Christians are the first mainstream thinkers to begin a fundamental critique of capitalism again.
Christians like Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne and so many others are questioning the legitimacy of economics run for the sake of profit rather than for people. They are in the mainstream of their culture, with best selling books and huge audiences at conferences and churches all over the world.
I can not think of any mainstream secular progressive who flat out questions the legitimacy of capitalism. Am I right about this? We have a lot of writers who call out the injustices of capitalism as it’s practiced today, but they don’t suggest that the system itself is evil and should be replaced by something else? Do they? Instead, they suggest that more education, better personal choices and some smart regulation is all that’s called for—all that’s possible anyways.
If I’m right about that (and I’m not sure that I am—please weigh in), then Christians are leading the way in reviving a fundamental critique of capitalism.
But they’re doing it with almost no connection to a centuries-old tradition of scholarly and practical thinking about capitalism—a tradition that they started. The first modern socialist/communists were Christians in England. The Early Church was communist. Through the 1700’s to the early 1900’s, the world and especially North America was dotted with Christian communist intentional communities. Even the Communist League, which commissioned Marx and Engels to write the Communist Manifesto, began as a Christian organization whose goal was: “the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth, based on the ideals of love of one’s neighbor, equality and justice.”
It’s possible that folks like McLaren and Claiborne are writing with a lot more knowledge of those traditions than they’re letting on. Maybe they feel there needs to be a clean break from the socialist tradition—that they’ll have better luck rebuilding a new movement without any infection from the past. And I would agree with them.
But maybe it’s possible that the socialist tradition is just so dead—and died for all practical purposes so long ago—that they really have had next to no contact with it.
For example: McLaren arrives (through a friend) at his book’s central concept, that our global economic system is a “suicide machine.” He arrives at this concept as though it’s a totally new way of thinking about our economy. But for 500 years, Christians and the secular socialist movement they gave birth to developed an incredibly deep understanding of Capitalism as a suicidal system.
It may sound like I’m criticizing. But I’m really not. If he’s feigning ignorance of the socialist tradition for strategic reasons, more power to him. If he’s really that detached from it, then, like I said before, I just want to marvel at the beauty and mystery of history.
Comments»
There’s a good deal of interesting thought out there. ‘The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom’ is a pretty interesting new way to look at non-market systems of cultural organization, and the new ’science’ complexity economics questions free markets as the basis for a democratic and sustainable society.
I think there’s a pretty profound analogy to what is going on in Christianity with modern geek culture. They really are imagining new worlds and new social models, which is where the internet came from.
“I can not think of any mainstream secular progressive who flat out questions the legitimacy of capitalism. Am I right about this?”
It depends on how you define “mainstream.” To me, mainstream means that a person’s life is in resonance with the main elements of the cultural milieu . A true progressive would not be in resonance with the cultural mainstream.
Personally I think it is more useful to look at economic systems as means to an end rather than systems bearing qualities of good or evil. Feudalism was somewhat effective at extracting value, consolidating power, and keeping dissenters in their place but it was supplanted by more subtle and efficient means to the same end. The same could eventually be true of capitalism.
Are Jerry Mander and E.F. Schumacher “mainstream secular progressives”? Derrick Jensen? Robert Jensen?
I’ve been following your blog now for only a couple of weeks but I become more fascinated by the day.
This is partly because it resonates with a current creative writing project; speculative fiction, but hypothesizing a (pseudo)religion existing entirely in cyberspace and with more than a passing resemblance to SecondLife or even World of Warcraft.
My perspective is that of the son of a Scottish Presbyterian Minister whose last church was in Dallas, Texas. Colour me agnostic, but engaged and respectful and fascinated by your contention that you don’t have to be a brain-dead red-neck to be an Evangelical.
Philip - I think that Schumacher is the only one of those four who could qualify as mainstream. And he didn’t question the legitimacy of capitalism. He was a liberal reformer type. Because he operated during a time when everyone around him were socialists, he may look a little like a socialist from our vantage point. Anyways, he doesn’t belong to this era.
Socialism is hardly dead in Europe (and elsewhere) where socialists routinely get elected to public office - and criticize capitalism as a system.
Matt -
I was thinking of bestselling, popularizing thinkers. (e.g. Benkler’s new paperback edition is ranked around 5000 on Amazon. Claiborne’s 2-year-old paperback is still ranked around 500.)
But you’re right: Benkler’s Wealth of Networks goes in the exact same direction in terms of questioning capitalism. Peter Barnes’ Capitalism 3.0 too. Who else?
And what’s interesting is that they’re running into the same problems as McLaren, Claiborne and other Christians by trying to reinvent the wheel and ignoring hundreds of years of critical thinking about capitalism.
More on that in the next post.
Thanks for keeping me from getting too carried away!
Bob - Can you give me some examples? It seems to me that most mainstream socialists in Europe are explicitly in favor of capitalism these days, but just think it should be seriously regulated, and that public services don’t have to be privatized.
Hey Zack -
Just wanted to add my name to those who think that the “mainstream progressives” are all about capitalism. In my own work in the non-profit and academic world here in Toronto I’ve met TONS of (as yet unpublished) folks who are secular and questioning the capitalist system. I’m even acquainted with an anarchist!
Also, as someone who studied Communism in East Europe, I think you might want to clarify your terms ’socialism’ and ‘communism’. Often I find both are wrapped up in people’s ideas of how those concepts played out in a particular place (ie. Russia) and space (ie. 1900s). You say Communism, I think Stalin ‘breaking a few eggs to make an omlet’ as he marched people up to Siberian death camps. I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about, but a little interp / explanation of what concepts / texts your referencing would make this post more clear.
Best to you and Elizabeth on the trip!!
Hi Erika -
That’s the problem, isn’t it. We can’t access those 500 years of thinking about capitalism without going into a spasm about Stalin. And so we pretend as though those 500 years of thinking never took place.
Are the unpublished writers you’re talking about accessing the work of the socialist movement, or trying to reinvent the wheel in order to avoid reading and citing anyone who was a socialist? I’d love to hear that, in the same way Christians are rediscovering the radicals in their past, that secular lefties are rediscovering those in theirs.
“Christians are the first mainstream thinkers to begin a fundamental critique of capitalism again.”
I think this is taking a very US-centric view of things. Skepticism of global capitalism has been an energizing force in much of the global South for most of the past decade, ever since the East Asian financial crisis (or earlier, but that’s a useful signpost). Ongoing anti-WTO and IMF protests in Asia, Africa and Latin America make the Seattle protests look pretty tame, and many leaders have emerged from (or co-opted the rhetoric of, but either way) those movements. Agree or not, Hugo Chavez and the wave of populist social democrats that have followed in his wake represent a pretty fundamental - and mainstream, given that much of Latin America is now led by one - critique of the way that capitalism (and especially American, Monroe-doctrine capitalism) is being implemented.
It is an interesting counterpoint to note that at the same time that social democracy is being increasingly embraced in the developing world, even in Europe where the welfare state remains largely entrenched (and popular), market-oriented politicians dominate the political conversation on both right and left.
I agree with the above. Chavez has done a lot for the “socialist” movement of late, which is anti-capitalisms. As far as other thinkers who are imagining new forms I would suggest you look into Mike Gravel’s ideas. He’s the Alaskan senator running for the Democrat presidential nomination. He supports direct Democracy which is a re-imagining of our capitalist government, which would allow people to directly contribute to the democratic process. He argues that because the law makers make the laws of how they get elected, they are not being elected democratically. So he wants to amend the constitution to allow people to vote on bills and such with technology like the internet. Not exactly an overhaul, but still pretty radical. I’m not endorsing Gravel, but I do think his ideas should be considered seriously.
I’m interested to know what McLaren had suggested as an alternative to capitalism. If anything at all? Sometimes its one thing to raise issues with an idea but not provide any alternatives of your own. But then again sometimes its enough just to get people thinking.
Also, someone above mentioned the “geek” culture and the internet. I also think that that might have a great relevance to the future of government. File sharing is already challenging the establishment, and it doesn’t look like they are going to be able to stop it no matter how many people they arrest. And things like Creative Commons license and open source culture in general really get around that and look at things like ownership in a different light.
Somethings to think about
I self identify as a liberal secular progressive, and I see a pretty widespread tradition of criticism of capitalism in such circles. For me, that comes close to being a defining characteristic of what it means to be a “liberal progressive”. I’m part of a local reading group that leans in that direction and, so far this fall, pretty much every thing we’ve covered has contained an element of this criticism.
Also, a side note, E. F. Schumacher, mentioned above in comment 2, was definitely a Christian and I think his work was greatly motivated and informed by his beliefs. His book Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered had a strong influence on my politics and is one of my favorites.
[…] Some evangelicals are reinventing socialism, not knowing about or too afraid to make the links to traditional socialism - which in turn had at least some Christian roots. The Communist League, which commissioned Marx and Engels to write the Communist Manifesto, began as a Christian organization whose goal was: “the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth, based on the ideals of love of one’s neighbor, equality and justice.” […]
> Can you give me some examples? It seems to me that most mainstream socialists in Europe are explicitly in favor of capitalism these days,
Respect is a party in Britain co-founded by member of Parliament George Galloway. Several people on their governing body are in Socialist Workers Party (SWP), which is a revolutionary Marxist party. (They are currently in engaged in brutal infighting, but that’s another story)
In Europe, people understand that there are differences between the various socialist factions, just like with the Repubs and Dems here. It’s only in the US that mention of socialism often gets immediately slimed with you must love Stalin then.
For an example here in the States, Catholic Worker (not formally allied with the Catholic Church, but most members are Catholic) is virtually socialist in practice and belief.
Their newspaper in L.A. is titled The Catholic Agitator.
http://lacatholicworker.org/category/agitator-archives/
JKD - yes, I should have said “in North America.” But also, even in the Global South resistance to capitalism has moved away from the goal of ultimately replacing it to the goal of merely defending against it.
Logan - Yes, progressive criticize capitalism plenty. But they’ve moved away from a critique of Capitalism’s fundamental logic. The mainstream progressive view now is that Capitalism (as they understand it: profit-driven markets, competition, etc…) is the best possible core engine for an economic system to be based on. They believe that engine needs to be regulated, but not replaced or joined by other sorts of intentionally created economic engines.
Bob - I agree that in Europe when you say “socialist” no one jumps up and yells “Stalin” the way they do here. But my point was that mainstream socialists in Europe are mostly like progressives in America now in that they believe capitalism is the best core engine for an economic system. They want to regulate it and maintain a few non-capitalist institutions (healthcare, education, etc). But they don’t want to talk about messing with the base Capitalist core of the economy. It’s like, “We fought that battle once. We lost. We’ve grown older, and we just don’t think about it anymore.”
Regarding the “Respect” party in Britain — they’re not a serious contender for power or even opposition. There are old-style socialist parties all over Europe and the world—but they’re not contenders for power or even opposition almost anywhere. Also, most of them are kind of stuck in the 1880’s — i.e. they’re living in relation to the issues and debates form the hay day of the socialist movement rather than the present day.
However, if anyone can point me to parties or movements that are aiming for national power, are thinking past capitalism, and are living in the context of the present day and not the 1880s or 1920s, then please tell me more!
Is there a summary of the argument that capitalism is a “suicide machine” somewhere? I just added this to my Amazon wish list even though that kind of language usually is a red flag for me.
I’m amongst the generally pro-capitalism, pro-regulation progressives. I don’t find the argument that it’s been a good thing for the cause of human freedom in general particularly controversial.
The frame I like is that it needs to be housebroken.
Dan - As far as I can tell from the book, I think your view is probably compatible with McLaren’s. i.e. he might say that Capitalism is a suicide machine as long as we don’t housebreak it.
Hardcore socialists would say capitalism can’t be reformed, because the core problem is the profit motive, thus it must be replaced, with a kinder, gentler capitalism not possible.
Of course, Adam Smith believed strongly in regulation of the economic system by the government!
The problem with any governmental system is that of self-perpetuating elites who control things. It happened in Russia, in China now, as well as in the U.S. They get entrenched and act in favor of their class, and not of all the people.
The key concept that Marxism brings to any discussion of economic systems is that of class. In the U.S., the pretense is there are no classes, but clearly there are. They aren’t as well-defined as in, say, Britain, but certainly do exist.
So, that concept and the idea of solidarity (we all stand together) can certainly be used by any movement working towards economic and social justice.
So while no socialist groups I know have a real chance at power, the ideas of socialism can and are being used advantageously by progressives (who may not even know their genesis.)
Bob - You’re right that a typical socialist position today is that the problem with capitalism is the profit motive. But that is a muddled and dumbed down version of what socialist believed on their best days during the height of the movement.
The real problem with capitalism isn’t the profit motive, but the structure of the economy. i.e. the profit motive is a great positive force in society wherever profit is a reward for good things (like reduction in environmental impact), and not for bad things (like environmental destruction).
The question is how do you get to that better structure? The government, as the only institution with the potential to represent all of the people, can do some of that restructuring. People need to do it in their own lives and their own communities too. But it also needs to happen at the govt. level. (Throughout history, including now, everyone wants to make it an either/or thing.)
But these days, we’ve lost faith in our ability to use govt to change big things about society. We have this story, that you bring up: if we try to use govt. to change society, then suddenly we will have Stalin!
That’s just silly. There’s a difference between putting the govt in charge of every aspect of our lives and communities and using govt to make a structural change. In fact, we have used the govt. over and over in US history to make BIG structural changes and no Stalin in sight. That’s because we have a democracy and the people aren’t going to give it up.
I know, “Russia! China!” But Russia got Stalin because it started with Stalin (czars). China got Mao because it started with Mao (emperors). But we have a hard-won democracy. Have some faith in it!
Bob: the problem you’re describing is plutocracy, not capitalism. Capitalism can support democratized economic power just as well as plutocratic concentration. Better, even: Jared Bernstein in All Together Now and Norton Garfinkle in The American Dream vs. The Gospel of Wealth both did excellent jobs crunching numbers on the last 100 years and shown that when econ power is more democratized the economy does better.
I vigorously agree that solidarity (aka interdpendence) is one of our big bedrock ideas. You’d probably dig this…
http://www.slideshare.net/DanAncona/high-road/
And Zack yeah, the red baiting is still a big issue and it’s not an argument we’re winning yet. There was an article in the Prospect a few months ago about this that I responded to here…
http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2007/07/jamming_the_cycle_of_failure.html
This is maybe the best discussion I’ve seen of core progressive issues yet, incidentally.
Just to echo Matt’s comment about parallels between the “revolution” Zack’s writing about and movements within the tech community (as reflected well in Benkler’s work) and the progressive “business” world (as reflected in Barnes’ “Capitalism 3.0″ and “Natural Capitalism”).
I’d suggest that there are not only parallels, but also potential linkages between these trends (and sets of “believers), which as Zack notes, have not yet had much of an impact on mainstream consciousness.
Among the values seemingly shared by these perspectives/movements are “community,” “cooperation” “trust”, “mutual respect,” “dignity” and “shared responsibility,” and a sense that human beings are motivated by more than money and material gain,and that this motivation can and should have an expanded role and influence in our economic (and political) system.
I had a big paragraph in my “What Would Diggers Do?” post about Barnes and Benkler but took it out for length. It IS so exciting, all these parallels.
A few other authors and books that come to mind in terms of more humane approaches to creating economic value and that might resonate with religious and secular progressives include:
Riane Eisler: Creating a Caring Economics
Robert Fuller: All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity
Jared Bernstein: All Together Now: Common Sense For A Fair Economy
Marjorie Kelly: The Divine Right of Capital
In various ways, all these books address the need for a healthier balance in managing an increasingly complex economic system that’s heavily weighted toward market mechanisms and regulated by a political system that itself has become largely dollar-driven.
As I see it, an important role for the religious community is to help build a strong moral foundation–backed by a deeply motivated segment of the population–for this rebalancing of our economic and political systems. My reading of Jesus’ teachings is that they are pretty well in sync with Fuller’s core principle of “dignity for all,” Eisler’s espousal of “Caring Economics,” Bernstein’s “We’re All In This Together” perspective, as well as Peter Barnes’ notion of public “trusts” to protect nature and other “commons,” and Yochai Benkler’s views on the value of non-market peer-based production.
What I find so exciting about the developments Zack is reporting on is that they suggest that a (mainly) younger generation of evangelicals is returning to Christianity’s core values and putting much less emphasis on issues like abortion and gay rights, whose links to the teaching of Jesus strike me as tenuous at best, and which tend to create barriers (and even animosity) between evangelicals and secular progressives.
Whether one is a believing Christian or not, it’s hard not to be inspired by the life and teachings of Jesus. A simple, shared, open-minded and open-hearted focus on that life and teaching, and the inspiration it can breed, seems like a potentially fruitful direction for mutually respectful discussion and alliance-building.