Can I get some fellow Catholic and Orthodox opinions on free market capitalism? I'm a student of Rerum Novarum, Centissimus Annus, Chesterton, Tolkien and a total Distributism fanboy.

Do you find capitalism at odds with the social teaching of Orthodox Christianity,

Chesterton quote for food for discussion

Economics should be a branch of moral philosophy.

The fundamental economic unit is labor.

Capitalism insofar as it is materialist and "morally neutral" is, if it (very improperly) promotes compound interest, is state-sponsored usury. Usury is a sin that "cries to heaven for vengeance," as is depriving the worker of a just wage.

It is wrong for oligarchs to promote the hammering of wages (mass entry into the labor market, homosexuality, for example). Social and economic policy are tied together.

All economic activity, therefore, should be orientated in the following manner:

The telos of life is theosis to Logos.

I like this definition of economics from Ferrara

Quote:

---

The Church, in line with the entire Western tradition since Aristotle, considers economics to be a branch of ethics oriented to the just exchange and social distribution of goods oriented to the life of the family as the basic unit of societyhence the etymology of the very word economics, derived from the Greek oikonomeia, which denotes "household management." The Church's social teaching thus defends the order of justice related to the support of the family in society.

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Responding to Chesterton:

As far as I can tell, the nostalgic, idyllic "Family" never existed. You can go into the details of any Golden Age in human history and find plenty of polygamy/adultery/divorce/disowning/disavowing/estrangement. The only times it seems family really gets emphasized is either during extreme poverty like the Great Depression or when people are displaying blatant nepotism. Neither of those situations are good overall, so color me skeptical about the greatness of capital f Family.

Also, blood or cultural family isn't supposed to matter to Christians anyway. Our fathers are supposed to be those who initiate and lead us in the faith, our children are those we initiate and lead, and our brothers and sisters are those who we do neither but encourage and support. These roles can certainly overlap with blood or cultural family, but that's incidental

---

Of course you can find plenty of it, but the societal reactions to such behavior was why there was so much less of it in those idyllic times than in modern times. Of course bad things still happened, but we werent numb to them nor celebratory of them.

I dont know how to respond to the rest of your post, blood family is absolutely supposed to matter to Christians, with parents have defined obligations to their children and their spouse that they dont have with others.

I cant make sense of almost your entire post.

XUSCR said:

---

Who has done more to improve the basic quality of life for the most people?

One thing the RCC is quite clear about is that socialism is entirely inconsistent with Catholic morality. More than one Pope has been quite clear about this.

---

That is in itself from Rerum Novarum and mentions the inviolability of private property.




The three main enyclicals discuss the evils of socialism and especially marxism: Rerum Novarum, Quadregesimo Anno, and Centesimus Annus.

However there have also been many extremely learned and doctrinally orthodox popes who have spoken out about capitalism as well

Pope Benedict XVI - "As we witness the cruelties of a capitalism that degrades man to the level of merchandisewe have gained a new appreciation of what Jesus meant when he warned of riches, of the man-destroying divinity Mammon, which grips large parts of the world in a cruel stranglehold."

Pope St. John Paul II much more nuanced and approving of a capitalist mix, which I think is beautifully phrased

"If by 'capitalism' is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative . But if by 'capitalism' is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative"

And not a Pope but still love the guy

Re: Chesterton-Small scale capitalism actually promotes family cohesion by providing means of material self-improvement. It is large scale monopoly capitalism which reduces labor opportunities and squeezes labor which destroys the family unit. The family farm of the late 1800s is a good example of this as are numerous family run small businesses today. I don't know what Chesterton would posit as an alternative and it appears he failed to distinguish between monopoly capitalism and small scale capitalism, but value added products are the economic basis of society today.

UTExan said:

---

Re: Chesterton-Small scale capitalism actually promotes family cohesion by providing means of material self-improvement. It is large scale monopoly capitalism which reduces labor opportunities and squeezes labor which destroys the family unit. The family farm of the late 1800s is a good example of this as are numerous family run small businesses today. I don't know what Chesterton would posit as an alternative and it appears he failed to distinguish between monopoly capitalism and small scale capitalism, but value added products are the economic basis of society today.

---

He and Tolkien were proponents of Distributism, small scale capitalism where workers share in the profits and risks of business through shared ownership of the company. Much like farm co-ops or the family business you named.

UTExan said:

---

Re: Chesterton-Small scale capitalism actually promotes family cohesion by providing means of material self-improvement. It is large scale monopoly capitalism which reduces labor opportunities and squeezes labor which destroys the family unit. The family farm of the late 1800s is a good example of this as are numerous family run small businesses today. I don't know what Chesterton would posit as an alternative and it appears he failed to distinguish between monopoly capitalism and small scale capitalism, but value added products are the economic basis of society today.

---

Great discussion, and I agree with the above. I found a really nice discussion of the point in the following link:

Too Few Capitalists or Too Much Capitalism?

Quote:

---

"Chesterton is not praising capitalism, he is calling for more people to be owners of capital, to possess capital. In that sense only is he calling for more people to be capitalists. As he said in The Catholic Church and Conversion, "we look back at Leo XIII and discover that he was saying then exactly what we are saying now. 'As many as possible of the working classes should become owners.'"3 Chesterton wanted more capitalists not in order that there should be more capitalism, but in order that there should be less capitalism, less of the "condition in which there is a class of capitalists in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage." For "it is really quite pedantic to say that the use of the capital must be capitalist. We might as fairly say that anything social must be Socialist"4"

---

I think Capitalism, as Chesterton may have envisioned it, is probably unattainable any more. We have abandoned the artisanal in favor of the huge conglomerate. Equally destructive of any hopes of obtaining what he might have wanted (in my opinion) is the abandonment of the principle of Subsidiarity, whereby any social, economic, or political function should be performed by as small of a group, and as local to the needs of those it serves, as possible. I completely understand that some functions can only be performed by large entities, but with the size and scope of our government and our large corporations, it would seem to me that the toothpaste is already out of the container and would be difficult to squeeze back in.

Quote:

---

Of course you can find plenty of it, but the societal reactions to such behavior was why there was so much less of it in those idyllic times than in modern times. Of course bad things still happened, but we werent numb to them nor celebratory of them.

I dont know how to respond to the rest of your post, blood family is absolutely supposed to matter to Christians, with parents have defined obligations to their children and their spouse that they dont have with others.

I cant make sense of almost your entire post.

---

Allow me to respond in two posts, because the ideas are very different. First, I would flatly disagree that any of the "unfamily-like" behaviors such as fornication, adultery, divorce, disavowing of relatives and the like were at any time in history less common than any other time. I would agree that at some times in history all of these things carried more stigma than other times, probably peaking with Victorian England. But I would also say that even during times of increased stigma the rate of these behaviors was basically unchanged. I can't think of any times among the ancient Egyptians, Jews, Greeks, Romans, medieval Islam or Europe, Renaissance Europe, modern Europe, ancient or medieval India, China or Japan that fits the ideal espoused. That's about the extant of my shallow historical knowledge, so I may be missing something somewhere else.
Really, the only time of supreme familial piety that comes to mind for me is the US Great Depression. I remember my grandfather telling me stories of an extended family of a dozen people living in one house. This was due to the fact that usually only one or two of those people had jobs, and only one actually owned a home. This wasn't so much familial piety as much as economic necessity, and the situation quickly changed when times weren't so bad.
To be more precise in my speech, the idea of two people getting married, loving each other (or at minimum enjoying each other's company), having children, staying together until death, and staying faithful their entire lives has always been the exception and has never been the rule. So while that may certainly be the family ideal, it doesn't make any sense to point to a single concept, like capitalism or communism, as ruining some situation that never existed anyway. It's not like we went from 99% of people living the above perfect scenario down to 25% because of capitalism or what have you. I'd say if that number is 25% now, it's been 25% pretty much throughout human history. Though I'd still say the actual number of lifelong faithful marriages would be less than that, unless you count the fact that people living longer makes for less young widows.

Quote:

---

I dont know how to respond to the rest of your post, blood family is absolutely supposed to matter to Christians, with parents have defined obligations to their children and their spouse that they dont have with others.

---

This one I thought would be a lot easier. You don't have to go past the Gospels to see the point here. Start with Matthew 12:46-50

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

Jesus here is making a very clear case that His family are those who follow His Father, not those related by blood. He wasn't so much denying his blood relatives as much as embracing His Disciples in this example. But lets backtrack to Matthew 10

34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

"'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.
37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Jesus has specifically said that belief in him will set people against their families, and that following Him is more important than being a dutiful family member. The quote from Matthew 12 shows also that Jesus considers His own family to be those who follow His Father. Paul speaks in the same language. In his letters, Paul calls both Timothy and Titus "son", because he was the one that raised them in the faith. They weren't his literal children. Again, to me it seems pretty clear that Christians should view family by spiritual ties, not blood or genetic ties.

As a tangent, this is probably the thing that bugs me most about mission-style evangelism or even Billy Graham style evangelism. Conversion is not a mission to get someone to say a prayer and then you can go back home. It is a spiritual adoption. Paul loved Timothy and Titus like his own children and Luke like a brother. They were spiritual family. Mission trip evangelism is like adopting a child on vacation and then going back home without them. Instead, conversion should be a personal, intimate process where someone in the church, if not many people, actually treat that person like family. To be fair, I've encountered that sort of love at every evangelical church I've ever attended, but it's the one and done missions that bother me not daily worship.

Edit: Now there is no reason why you can't be a spiritual parent to your physical children, a spiritual brother to your actual brother, and a spiritual child to your parents. I think we'd all agree that would be ideal. But if push comes to shove the spiritual bonds should be more important than the genetic ones.

Capitalism at its basest is economic freedom.

if you are arguing that economic freedom can lead to many bad choices my answer is "Sure it can."

some of those bad choices will be divorce, adultery, a loss of faith and rejecting religion.

but in the end is it better that people become educated and make the choice to be faithful or not or that they remain uneducated, dismal, poor wretches controlled by the few with power and have a false fascinike of faith thurst upon them as was the case in medieval europe.

i guess the answer to that question depends on your fundamental view of the purpose of God's divine plan and nature of Christianity itself.

faithfulness without freedom of choice is not true faithfulness IMHO.

I think a lot of people have a pretty distorted view of medieval feudalism. I need to find the article but basically most people lived decent, clean lives. Even peasants. Yes, they were poor by modern standards, but the poor today are richer than the rich were then.

Anyway, capitalism at its basest is not economic freedom. That is a misunderstanding. Capitalism in and of itself makes no guarantee of freedom or who can participate. You can have a capitalist caste society. You can have a capitalist system overlaid on feudalism. You can have free markets supported by slave labor. The idea that capitalized ownership and free markets exist doesn't necessarily mean that access to capital, markets, and liquidity is universal any more than the idea of democracy means suffrage is universal. In the past two centuries we've moved that way, but it's not a given.

And even within capitalism, you can't simply say that capitalism in its basest form is nothing more than freedom. That's like saying democracy in its basest form is freedom. No: democracy in its basest form is instability that leads to tyranny. Every time. Guaranteed.

Maximizing profit is not a virtue in a real sense, but it is the *only* virtue in capitalism. Capitalism is silent on morality, it doesn't give us any guidance at all on how to weigh profit motive in ethical considerations. It doesn't praise charitable giving, and quite possibly argues against it (altering the value of things through altruism is in essence an irrational market distortion). Capitalism doesn't really even provide a framework for the value of long term and short term profitability. If anything the time value of money says they are completely interchangeable - but we know humans are incapable of handling this in practice. They prefer to destroy long term value in favor of diminished short term gains.

It needs to be tempered by virtue other than profit motive. And you are sort of reinforcing my point by saying it requires education. Because what education is that? Not only that profit is good, but also that while profit is good, charity is better. That there are more important things than profit. This is the bridle that stabilizes capitalism, just as much as a strong, effective republic stabilizes a democracy.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I think a lot of people have a pretty distorted view of medieval feudalism. I need to find the article but basically most people lived decent, clean lives. Even peasants. Yes, they were poor by modern standards, but the poor today are richer than the rich were then.

Anyway, capitalism at its basest is not economic freedom. That is a misunderstanding. Capitalism in and of itself makes no guarantee of freedom or who can participate. You can have a capitalist caste society. You can have a capitalist system overlaid on feudalism. You can have free markets supported by slave labor. The idea that capitalized ownership and free markets exist doesn't necessarily mean that access to capital, markets, and liquidity is universal any more than the idea of democracy means suffrage is universal. In the past two centuries we've moved that way, but it's not a given.

And even within capitalism, you can't simply say that capitalism in its basest form is nothing more than freedom. That's like saying democracy in its basest form is freedom. No: democracy in its basest form is instability that leads to tyranny. Every time. Guaranteed.

Maximizing profit is not a virtue in a real sense, but it is the *only* virtue in capitalism. Capitalism is silent on morality, it doesn't give us any guidance at all on how to weigh profit motive in ethical considerations. It doesn't praise charitable giving, and quite possibly argues against it (altering the value of things through altruism is in essence an irrational market distortion). Capitalism doesn't really even provide a framework for the value of long term and short term profitability. If anything the time value of money says they are completely interchangeable - but we know humans are incapable of handling this in practice. They prefer to destroy long term value in favor of diminished short term gains.

It needs to be tempered by virtue other than profit motive. And you are sort of reinforcing my point by saying it requires education. Because what education is that? Not only that profit is good, but also that while profit is good, charity is better. That there are more important things than profit. This is the bridle that stabilizes capitalism, just as much as a strong, effective republic stabilizes a democracy.

---

Is there a difference between the free market and capitalism?

I think so, yes. A free market is one where prices are set by demand, by sellers in response to consumers. Capitalism is where private individuals or groups of individuals own the means of production and operate them to make money. I guess in theory you could have fixed price capitalism or free market socialism. In the former, the state fixes prices and private corporations or individuals endeavor to be profitable in that environment. A regulated utility with private owners fits this description. Or maybe healthcare in the US right now, to some extent. In the latter, state owned corporations produce products but the pricing of those products is set based on demand. Maybe theoretical only, but you could imagine it.

Insofar as they exist (they do NOT, what we plainly see is bureaucratic and regulatory capture, we are under a rule by "woke" oligarchs) -
"free markets" are inadequate for strong economic functionality, as the physical / materials based-economy is only actualized to a (very) minor proportion of total capacity - and even that "portion" is not an efficient use of resources (think about food waste at all school districts, or just the sheer volume of waste, period).

I'm in favor of free market capitalism, the bucolic ideals of feudal peasantry notwithstanding.

Ecclesiastical views on economics are going to be and have been historically as self serving as political ones. The current Pope is said to seek economic activity based on "compassion and generosity", when questions on his specific comments get equally specific about the tradeoffs that he conveniently does not spend a lot of time on. That's disingenuous.

No one is advocating for feudalism here. At least I'm not.

But we also shouldn't stop at capitalism. It's good - the best we've got so far - but it's not perfect. At least not the 20th century variety. It needs useful fictions like other parts of economics - fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, etc. You need people to somewhat irrationally prefer long term results to short term, even if only a little. And you need to temper profit with justice, mercy, whatever virtues you like. Not just because these things are intrinsically good (they are) but because they will also result in a better, more stable system.

k2aggie07 said:

---

No one is advocating for feudalism here. At least I'm not.

But we also shouldn't stop at capitalism. It's good - the best we've got so far - but it's not perfect. At least not the 20th century variety. It needs useful fictions like other parts of economics - fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, etc. You need people to somewhat irrationally prefer long term results to short term, even if only a little. And you need to temper profit with justice, mercy, whatever virtues you like. Not just because these things are intrinsically good (they are) but because they will also result in a better, more stable system.

---

Nothing will be perfect here in this world, but I do see the free markets as the best tool to ferret out the imperfections. Profit does not need tempering, it's beneficiaries need to likewise value justice, mercy, etc. for the world to operate well and provide billions with access to a fruitful life free of extreme poverty.

Best tool to date, sure. We will come up with something better. I'm sure of it.

I think we're saying the same thing with regard to profit. Tempering means to moderate, to mix in due proportion, to govern or manage. Alloying the good that is profit seeking with other goods will reduce the consideration of profit in the personal and societal decision making process. Valuing things other than profit are exactly what tempering it is.

We've talked about metals this way for six centuries or so now. You take steel, and when you quench it it's incredibly hard but also brittle. You temper it, and the hardness comes down a little, but the toughness goes way up. It's a great analogy, because untempered profit is steel without toughness. Strong, but so brittle that it's not useable long term.

Fair enough. Colloquially, "tempering" tends to be used often to mean "restraining" or "diluting", that's the way I took it. The "hardening" or making more practically useful takes other virtues.

The free market underpins capitalism in the sense that people/entities VOLUNTARILY agree to enter into an exchange of consideration at an agreed price. Ideally this is done with both parties having complete information and without coercion of any kind. Incomplete information leads to market inefficiencies and possibly externalities. The Coase Theorem attempts to address externalities (e.g. pollution credits). Regulations are an attempt to address the same inefficiencies, but they can make things worse.

Sure. No argument. Obviously the combination of free markets and capitalism is better than either. But unless I'm mistaken capitalism technically just refers to who owns what, while free market only refers to who prices what. You could make a coherent argument that you can't actually have one without the other, but I think at least in concept they're two distinct ideas.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Sure. No argument. Obviously the combination of free markets and capitalism is better than either. But unless I'm mistaken capitalism technically just refers to who owns what, while free market only refers to who prices what. You could make a coherent argument that you can't actually have one without the other, but I think at least in concept they're two distinct ideas.

---

I think that's about right.

Taking this back in what I thought was the original direction of this thread, I contend that the free market is morally superior to any statist/collectivist model because it promotes individual responsibility and does not involve coercion.

I think the challenge is that both capitalism and socialism are materialist frameworks and therefore can easily lead to a debased view of humanity and the end goal of humans. What Chesterton points out is accurate.

The Catholic Encyclopedia on Socialism:

Quote:

---

From the Christian point of view material necessities are to be kept at a minimum, and material superfluities as far as possible to be dispensed with altogether. The Christian is a soldier and a pilgrim who requires material things only as a means to fitness and nothing more. In this he has the example of Christ Himself, Who came to earth with a minimum of material advantages and persisted thus even to the Cross. The Christian, then, not only from the individual but also from the social standpoint, has chosen the better part. He does not despise this life, but, just because his material desires are subordinate to his spiritual ones, he lives it much more reasonably, much more unselfishly, much more beneficially to his neighbours.

---

And the coup de gras:

Quote:

---

The point, too, which he makes against the Socialist is this. The Socialist wishes to distribute material goods in such a way as to establish a substantial equality, and in order to do this he requires the State to make and keep this distribution compulsory. The Christian replies to him: "You cannot maintain this widespread distribution, for the simple reason that you have no machinery for inducing men to desire it. On the contrary, you do all you can to increase the selfish and accumulative desires of men: you centre and concentrate all their interest on material accumulation, and then expect them to distribute their goods."

This ultimate difference between Christian and Socialist teaching must be clearly understood. Socialism appropriates all human desires and centres them on the here-and-now, on material benefit and prosperity. But material goods are so limited in quality, in quantity, and in duration that they are incapable of satisfying human desires, which will ever covet more and more and never feel satisfaction. In this Socialism and Capitalism are at one, for their only quarrel is over the bone upon which is the meat that perisheth. Socialism, of itself and by itself, can do nothing to diminish or discipline the immediate and materialistic lust of men, because Socialism is itself the most exaggerated and universalized expression of this lust yet known to history. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches and practices unselfish distribution of material goods, both according to the law of justice and according to the law of charity.

---

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14062a.htm

I think that is besides the point. All human political and economic systems are based in a materialist framework, so they are all incompatible with ideal Christian desires and motives. Christ and His followers are not supposed to fit in this world. OTOH, a society full of humble, generous, hardworking Christians would make any system look good, whether capitalism, communism, monarchy, anarchy, feudalism or what have you.

On the other hand, government mediated free market capitalism is so far the most successful system in a world that isn't full of humble, generous, hardworking people

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I think that is besides the point. All human political and economic systems are based in a materialist framework, so they are all incompatible with ideal Christian desires and motives. Christ and His followers are not supposed to fit in this world. OTOH, a society full of humble, generous, hardworking Christians would make any system look good, whether capitalism, communism, monarchy, anarchy, feudalism or what have you.

On the other hand, government mediated free market capitalism is so far the most successful system in a world that isn't full of humble, generous, hardworking people

---

I think we are probably pretty close to agreement.

The question is whether "capitalism at odds with the social teaching of Orthodox* Christianity" not which economic system results in the best economic outcomes or best development of virtuous citizens. I think capitalism is superior to socialism or anything else on that front.

But is capitalism at odds with social teaching? I don't think it is directly, since it is materialist and social teaching addresses the spiritual.

But indirectly capitalism could be at odds with Christian social teaching if we start to see capital accumulation and wealth as the end goal in life.

* - I take this to mean all Christianity, not the Orthodox Church

Honestly I think Christians can live Christ-like lives in any system aside from a totalitarian fear state. But I agree that we shouldn't expect capitalism or any other earthly system to inherently promote Christian values.

k2aggie07 said:

---

No one is advocating for feudalism here. At least I'm not.

But we also shouldn't stop at capitalism. It's good - the best we've got so far - but it's not perfect. At least not the 20th century variety. It needs useful fictions like other parts of economics - fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, etc. You need people to somewhat irrationally prefer long term results to short term, even if only a little. And you need to temper profit with justice, mercy, whatever virtues you like. Not just because these things are intrinsically good (they are) but because they will also result in a better, more stable system.

---

This is why much of the gospel dogma is good for individuals but when applied broadly creates a society of utter failure.

too much mercy results in rampant crime (turn the other cheek and forgiveness without limit or end).

too much charitable giving to the poor results in individuals unwilling to work to support themselves and their families.

If everyone sold all their possessions to be missionaries, families would fall apart and the only people who would ammass wealth would be those who have the desire to dominate others and the world woukd be the worse off for it.

justice is needed on a societal scale in order to motivate individuals to behave to the best of their ability. mercy and charity are best left to the individual who can be discriminatory and hopefully be guided by the Spirit in who would best benefit from it.

capitalism is the best we will be able to do in a fallen world because it allows free choice. it alloes tose who are faithful to not only benefit monetarily in the worldly blessings the Lord wants to bestow upon us but it enables the faiyhful to spread the pure love of christ through the world.