According to Elizabeth Warren, capitalism necessarily means
exploitation:
·
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on
their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to
be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You
hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory
because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You
didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at
your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something
terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying
social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who
comes along.”
Warren suggests that the creator of capital doesn't really
have a right to his capital, because the capitalist had taken advantage of the
labor of others.
However, creating wealth can also be an act of love. What if
I decide to work 14 hours a day and sow 50 acres with tomatoes instead of my
usual 30. I will have to hire two unemployed neighbors, and the extra tomatoes
going to the market will lower the price for everyone! Doesn't sound too evil,
does it?
Let's now add another aspect of capitalism. It empowers. It
motivates and marshals our energies into something wholesome - creating things
that others want and need.
In contrast, when the government assumes responsibility for
our welfare, we are disempowered. We no longer need to work or to be
enterprising. We become devalued, even within our nuclear families. The
bread-winner is no longer essential, when the State provides. The children are
no longer essential to provide for their parents, after the State assumes
responsibility for them.
The community also becomes irrelevant and therefore
disempowered once their care-giving role has been usurped by the State.
What is the alternative to capitalism - the freedom to
pursue capital? The elimination of this freedom! But how? Through costly
government control! For what purpose? Empowerment or dis-empowerment?
Is capitalism an evil? Does it foster greed, materialism,
exploitation, and avarice or is it one of many ways that our baser instincts
can find expression?
In "The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," Max Weber argued that
capitalism is not the cause of these evils but one of many ways that our evils
can be expressed:
·
The impulse to acquisition, pursuit of gain, of
money, of the greatest possible amount of money, has in itself nothing to do
with capitalism. This impulse exists and has existed among waiters, physicians,
coachmen, artists, prostitutes, dishonest officials, soldiers, nobles,
crusaders, gamblers, and beggars. One may say that it has been common to all
sorts and conditions of men at all times and in all countries of the earth,
wherever the objective possibility of it is or has been given. It should be
taught in the kindergarten of cultural history that this naïve idea of
capitalism must be given up once and for all.
In light of this, socialism and communism do not eliminate
our dark impulses but merely channel them in different ways.
Let's return to Warren:
·
"But part of the underlying social contract
is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes
along.”
Indeed, we are our brother's keeper. We have been given and
so we must give, but how? Through government coercion? The Bible insists that
giving should be done freely and not through coercion:
·
“The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will
also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under
compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace
abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you
may abound in every good work.” (2 Corinthians 9:6-8)
When giving is coerced, it is not cheerful. It might not
even be helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment