Capitalism. What, exactly, is it? Is it a process of running an economy? Or is it a philosophy, or a set of beliefs? And what, if anything, is the "opposite" of capitalism?
My take on popular American culture is that capitalism is regarded as both a way to run an economy and as a philosophy. I also think that, in popular American culture, the opposite of capitalism is communism. Socialism is the soft-form of communism, but it is still viewed as a form of stealing: stealing from those who have worked hard in order to give to those who do not work hard.
I also think that the specter of The Cold War is embedded deeply in American culture. And, since major social experiences typically live on for generations, our culture will carry the shadow of the Cold War for many decades into the future. The shadow of The Cold War provides us with the belief that "Communism and socialism are the enemies of Christianity and the enemies of capitalism, therefore capitalism is a Christian virtue."
This causes many Christians to view capitalism in a very uncritical way. After all, God clearly does not want us to have a communist or socialist society, therefore God must want us to have a capitalist society.
It might surprise some people to hear that I'm actually in favor of capitalism. I'm also in favor of socialist values and I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive.
But I don't believe in free-market, laissez-faire capitalism. I don't believe in the capitalist mantra that allowing capital and labor to flow into and out of sectors according to the laws of supply and demand will result in the greatest social good. I also don't believe in "trickle-down". As I say these things, I also acknowledge that the question of "How should an economy be regulated?" is a difficult one with no easy answers.
And, if I believe in socialism, I'd much rather that the socialism was embedded in our value system of how we want our society to behave. What I mean by that is that my dream is a society where there is a broad consensus that governments, communities and individuals will work to "love their neighbor".
In sum, I believe that capitalism can be used as an operating system to further an objective (philosophy) of "the greater good" or "loving one's neighbor". Using a capitalist operating system doesn't necessarily mean having to follow a survival-of-the-fittest philosophy. And pursuing a philosophy of "pursuit of the greater good" in our society doesn't necessarily have to mean top-down direction and, as far as I am concerned, it certainly doesn't imply iron-fisted totalitarianism.
I'm imagining at least one person saying that pursuing an approach of "loving one's neighbor" is not something that can be legislated, that it requires a conversion experience. I agree. But I am talking here about a Christian approach to the economy. But I also think that, to a large extent, European Socialism does embody more of a social consensus to love one's neighbor and to look out for the poor. I do believe that, however much empathy an American individual might have for those who are down on their luck, that as a society we believe in and embrace the pursuit of profits as the greatest social and spiritual good that we can collectively pursue.
Your thoughts?
Showing posts with label Great Commandment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Great Commandment. Show all posts
30 March 2010
01 February 2010
On Being Nice
I had a teacher in elementary school who, I believe with hindsight, wanted to teach us to be literate people and good, interesting writers. This teacher would not accept the use of the word "nice" in a book report to describe the book itself, the characters in it or any part of the plot. He would kind of sneer and say "Nice is such a nice word". I'm pretty sure he meant meaningless and not very descriptive but I also got the impression that he thought that the word "nice" and the concept it conveyed were both a bit weak and wet.
In light of the discussion over the Methodist Social Media principles, I want to say that I believe in being nice, although I don't always achieve it. Or rather, there is one kind of "nice" I do believe in and one kind of "nice" I don't believe in.
The kind of "nice" I believe in is the kind of "nice" that we are called to in what Christians call The Great Commandment. (I recently heard a Jewish Rabbi say that Jesus' disciples asked him what was the greatest commandment and that, like a good Jewish Rabbi, he gave them two answers rather than one!) I believe in the kind of "nice" that is defined by "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians call this "agape" love, taking on board the Greek concept of the kind of love that comes from positive actions that we actively decide to engage in. As opposed to the kind of love that comes from romance or parental or familial ties.
Many leaders will say that it's way too simplistic to simply say "Everyone should be nice to each other" as if this will solve all the power struggles in the world. Yes, its true that this is a simple concept. Yet I believe that this simple concept is necessary, if it is not sufficient, for those bigger initiatives of peace to begin. Agape love doesn't require us to stir up warm feelings in our gut for someone who just punched us in the face. But it does ask us to use our will to restrain from punching the other person back. In a sense, I think agape love is freeing: we don't have to be all warm and fuzzy about those who have done us wrong. But we are asked to use our wills to treat the person fairly.
But there is another kind of "nice" that I don't believe in. And I suspect it's the kind of "nice" that people think about when they are sneering about being nice. And that's the kind of "nice" that is not about agape love but rather about the path of least resistance or "I just want a quiet life". The kind of "nice" that doesn't want to stand up for injustice or truth or fairness because it is either afraid or it can't be bothered. That sort of "nice" I don't believe in. At it's very worst, this kind of "nice" can destroy clubs, schools, congregations and sometimes even communities: when no one will stand up to destructive factions out of fear or "laziness".
In light of the discussion over the Methodist Social Media principles, I want to say that I believe in being nice, although I don't always achieve it. Or rather, there is one kind of "nice" I do believe in and one kind of "nice" I don't believe in.
The kind of "nice" I believe in is the kind of "nice" that we are called to in what Christians call The Great Commandment. (I recently heard a Jewish Rabbi say that Jesus' disciples asked him what was the greatest commandment and that, like a good Jewish Rabbi, he gave them two answers rather than one!) I believe in the kind of "nice" that is defined by "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians call this "agape" love, taking on board the Greek concept of the kind of love that comes from positive actions that we actively decide to engage in. As opposed to the kind of love that comes from romance or parental or familial ties.
Many leaders will say that it's way too simplistic to simply say "Everyone should be nice to each other" as if this will solve all the power struggles in the world. Yes, its true that this is a simple concept. Yet I believe that this simple concept is necessary, if it is not sufficient, for those bigger initiatives of peace to begin. Agape love doesn't require us to stir up warm feelings in our gut for someone who just punched us in the face. But it does ask us to use our will to restrain from punching the other person back. In a sense, I think agape love is freeing: we don't have to be all warm and fuzzy about those who have done us wrong. But we are asked to use our wills to treat the person fairly.
But there is another kind of "nice" that I don't believe in. And I suspect it's the kind of "nice" that people think about when they are sneering about being nice. And that's the kind of "nice" that is not about agape love but rather about the path of least resistance or "I just want a quiet life". The kind of "nice" that doesn't want to stand up for injustice or truth or fairness because it is either afraid or it can't be bothered. That sort of "nice" I don't believe in. At it's very worst, this kind of "nice" can destroy clubs, schools, congregations and sometimes even communities: when no one will stand up to destructive factions out of fear or "laziness".
31 January 2010
Methodist Social Media Guidelines
OK, I'm going to weigh in on the debate on the "Social Media Paper" going before (British) Methodist Council this coming week.
I'm afraid I've only seen links that jump right to the report and because I don't know how to create links in this situation, I cannot give a link to the report. However, a number of other Methodist bloggers have already provided links. Angela Shier-Jones' comment A place to Confer...? has a link and also one of the best comments on the matter that I've read.
There seems to be a view amongst some bloggers that the paper is an attempt to stifle on-line free speech amongst Methodists or even to discourage the use of blogging and social media altogether. I honestly don't see this.
On the theory that most people probably won't follow the links, I have copied below what I think is the substance of the guidelines. I note that the paper itself says that the guidelines will not be as stringently applied to office holders or ministers as they will be to Connexional Staff. That could be construed as "well, it's OK for Connexional Staff to have their freedom of speech suppressed" except that I don't think this is a paper about suppressing freedom of speech.
Before I became a minister, I worked for a large US company and the guidelines on internet usage and blogging (there was little social media at the time) were far more stringent. It seems to me to be reasonable - indeed, a no-brainer - that I would not want to gratuitously bring the Methodist Church into ill repute for no good reason. (And if I felt it necessary to go after the Church hammer and tongs for a gave injustice, I personally would not want to be part of it.)
I don't understand why this is arousing so much anxiety. I know that Methodists are an ornery lot but it appears that the idea of being team players and treating others the way we'd want to be treated ourselves makes a lot of people nervous.
Anyway, here is the substance of the guidelines:
5.1 Connexional Team staff are bound by ‘Speaking for the Methodist Church’ and
its appendices. Repeated failure to follow these documents can lead to disciplinary
action, and the same will be true of the following guidelines on social media.
Be responsible
i. Engaging in social media for your own purposes should be done in your own
time. Even social media used in your own time and on your own equipment has
the potential to raise disciplinary issues. The easiest way to prevent most
problems is to state that the views being expressed are your own and not the
Church’s, but you still need to avoid making statements that could bring the
Church into disrepute.
ii. Staff may only respond to or participate in social media for Church purposes
either as an explicit part of their job description, or with permission of their line
manager. In the latter case, this might either be a blanket approval or on a case
by case basis. The staff member and line manager should agree roughly how
much time this should take, and review regularly to make sure that this limit is
realistic and being met.
iii. The Church aims to have a single spokesperson on any topic. If that isn’t you,
you should at least find out who that person is and see how they might respond if
you were to speak on the issue, or ask if it would be more useful for them to
respond in their own name.
iv. Don’t share anything inappropriate about yourself, colleagues or any projects
that are not yet ready to be publicised. Treat things you learn at work as
confidential unless explicitly cleared to talk about them publicly.
v. You are ultimately responsible for your online activities; both the content and
the time spent. If either or both of these do not meet acceptable standards, then
your line manager will raise it as a concern. If the unacceptable behaviour
continues, then you could face disciplinary action.
Represent the Church properly
vi. Above all, remember that we are a Christian Church. Whatever your own faith
story, do not do or say anything that damages or undermines our reputation as a
Church, and respond in all ways with Christian love.
vii. Clearly state your name and position with the Church. Do not take part
anonymously, or under an alias (except as noted below in section 9)
viii. Where possible, link to relevant papers, such as Council or Conference
reports, fact sheets, press releases or foundational documents, especially if the
Conference has adopted a statement on a particular topic, therefore making it the
official position of the Church.
ix. Be professional in all your online activities. Check your spelling and grammar,
don’t be offensive or say anything improper. Make your arguments clearly and
truthfully. Even if people disagree with what you say, they should be impressed
with your manner. Don’t do or encourage anything illegal or improper.
Respect
x. Respect others and their beliefs and positions, even where you disagree.
xi. Make your cases and arguments constructively, factually, and with respect for
the need for good quality public discourse. Be truthful and honest.
xii. Respect the outcomes of our governance processes, which are based on
democratic and representative principles. You should not undermine a governance
outcome you disagree with. If you feel you must discuss it, then do so
constructively, stating the official position of the Church first and then stating
clearly why you disagree.
Ministers and other office holders of the Church
6.1 As noted above ministers (presbyters and deacons) and other office holders are
in different positions to that of Connexional Team staff. In practice this means that
these groups have more freedom than Connexional Team staff, but the principle
that all are responsible for what they write still applies. The core summary of being
responsible, respectful and good representatives of the Church remains true, but
different people will have different ways of following this in practice. Standing Order
740 clauses (2) and (3) give an outline of what the Church expects of those
admitted into full Connexion or recognised and regarded and of probationers.
I'm afraid I've only seen links that jump right to the report and because I don't know how to create links in this situation, I cannot give a link to the report. However, a number of other Methodist bloggers have already provided links. Angela Shier-Jones' comment A place to Confer...? has a link and also one of the best comments on the matter that I've read.
There seems to be a view amongst some bloggers that the paper is an attempt to stifle on-line free speech amongst Methodists or even to discourage the use of blogging and social media altogether. I honestly don't see this.
On the theory that most people probably won't follow the links, I have copied below what I think is the substance of the guidelines. I note that the paper itself says that the guidelines will not be as stringently applied to office holders or ministers as they will be to Connexional Staff. That could be construed as "well, it's OK for Connexional Staff to have their freedom of speech suppressed" except that I don't think this is a paper about suppressing freedom of speech.
Before I became a minister, I worked for a large US company and the guidelines on internet usage and blogging (there was little social media at the time) were far more stringent. It seems to me to be reasonable - indeed, a no-brainer - that I would not want to gratuitously bring the Methodist Church into ill repute for no good reason. (And if I felt it necessary to go after the Church hammer and tongs for a gave injustice, I personally would not want to be part of it.)
I don't understand why this is arousing so much anxiety. I know that Methodists are an ornery lot but it appears that the idea of being team players and treating others the way we'd want to be treated ourselves makes a lot of people nervous.
Anyway, here is the substance of the guidelines:
5.1 Connexional Team staff are bound by ‘Speaking for the Methodist Church’ and
its appendices. Repeated failure to follow these documents can lead to disciplinary
action, and the same will be true of the following guidelines on social media.
Be responsible
i. Engaging in social media for your own purposes should be done in your own
time. Even social media used in your own time and on your own equipment has
the potential to raise disciplinary issues. The easiest way to prevent most
problems is to state that the views being expressed are your own and not the
Church’s, but you still need to avoid making statements that could bring the
Church into disrepute.
ii. Staff may only respond to or participate in social media for Church purposes
either as an explicit part of their job description, or with permission of their line
manager. In the latter case, this might either be a blanket approval or on a case
by case basis. The staff member and line manager should agree roughly how
much time this should take, and review regularly to make sure that this limit is
realistic and being met.
iii. The Church aims to have a single spokesperson on any topic. If that isn’t you,
you should at least find out who that person is and see how they might respond if
you were to speak on the issue, or ask if it would be more useful for them to
respond in their own name.
iv. Don’t share anything inappropriate about yourself, colleagues or any projects
that are not yet ready to be publicised. Treat things you learn at work as
confidential unless explicitly cleared to talk about them publicly.
v. You are ultimately responsible for your online activities; both the content and
the time spent. If either or both of these do not meet acceptable standards, then
your line manager will raise it as a concern. If the unacceptable behaviour
continues, then you could face disciplinary action.
Represent the Church properly
vi. Above all, remember that we are a Christian Church. Whatever your own faith
story, do not do or say anything that damages or undermines our reputation as a
Church, and respond in all ways with Christian love.
vii. Clearly state your name and position with the Church. Do not take part
anonymously, or under an alias (except as noted below in section 9)
viii. Where possible, link to relevant papers, such as Council or Conference
reports, fact sheets, press releases or foundational documents, especially if the
Conference has adopted a statement on a particular topic, therefore making it the
official position of the Church.
ix. Be professional in all your online activities. Check your spelling and grammar,
don’t be offensive or say anything improper. Make your arguments clearly and
truthfully. Even if people disagree with what you say, they should be impressed
with your manner. Don’t do or encourage anything illegal or improper.
Respect
x. Respect others and their beliefs and positions, even where you disagree.
xi. Make your cases and arguments constructively, factually, and with respect for
the need for good quality public discourse. Be truthful and honest.
xii. Respect the outcomes of our governance processes, which are based on
democratic and representative principles. You should not undermine a governance
outcome you disagree with. If you feel you must discuss it, then do so
constructively, stating the official position of the Church first and then stating
clearly why you disagree.
Ministers and other office holders of the Church
6.1 As noted above ministers (presbyters and deacons) and other office holders are
in different positions to that of Connexional Team staff. In practice this means that
these groups have more freedom than Connexional Team staff, but the principle
that all are responsible for what they write still applies. The core summary of being
responsible, respectful and good representatives of the Church remains true, but
different people will have different ways of following this in practice. Standing Order
740 clauses (2) and (3) give an outline of what the Church expects of those
admitted into full Connexion or recognised and regarded and of probationers.
24 November 2009
Capitalism as a Belief System
There have been a number of debates going on in the blogosphere about US health-care reform which I have been participating in over the last few weeks and quite a few of these have branched off into discussions about business, economics and social beliefs and values. In conjunction with yesterday's post on the subject of compassion and The Golden Rule, I've had a some thoughts on the subjects of "The Golden Rule, Capitalism and Health Care" which I'm going to attempt to write about in a series of posts.
In many ways, I'm still a "foreigner" here in the US and one of the things that has struck me is how much capitalism appears to be for many people in the US a belief system as well as a way of running an economy. After twenty years working in the equity markets, my own opinion is that capitalism is, historically, the least worst way of running an economy that human history has devised.
It's also my opinion however, that as a belief system, capitalism stinks. And I believe that capitalism is the number one belief system held by US society. Christians may say that they believe in the Lordship of Christ, but in actual fact we believe in the Lordship of Profits. We prove this every day by the way we live our lives.
I think that there are historic reasons for many of our economic beliefs. The rule of King George III in raising taxes in America for his own selfish empire building had much to do with establishing the idea that taxation is stealing. The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence was almost "life, liberty and the pursuit of profit"; so this value has a 200+ year history in US society.
And, of course, the Cold War which was actually a clash of super-powers was characterized in the US as "The good and moral values of capitalism versus the bad and immoral values of socialism/communism". In US culture, "democracy" and "capitalism" are seen as synonymous by many even though they are not. In US culture, "totalitarianism" and "socialism" are seen as synonymous even though they are not. And the worst conflation of all is the idea that Christianity and the pursuit of profits (capitalism's value system as opposed to its operating system) are synonymous.
Let's be really simplistic here. Jesus said that the greatest of all commandments is "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" (basically, The Golden Rule). Capitalism says that all businesses must be run for the highest risk/reward ratio - for the highest profit. Therefore Capitalism's value system cannot be the focus of Christian behavior or of Christian ethical reasoning.
Rather than testing every social venture by the test of "Will this venture make the highest profit for the capital that has been invested?", Jesus' teachings require Christians to use the test of "Will this venture benefit the citizens of this country/State/city/county in aggregate?" I appreciate that determining aggregate social benefit is another complex ethical problem but I don't think that we can abdicate the responsibility of making that moral determination by simply defaulting to the standard of profit. "Oh, it's too difficult to decide what it means for society to 'benefit' from health-care, so let's just run our health-care system on the basis that all providers should make as much as they can from their investment."
We do already recognize that some services to society are too important to leave to individuals to either perform or to raise money for. And, historically, many of these things were once left to individuals: policing, fire-fighting and education. It's a mystery to me how we can argue that education is of benefit to society and should be paid for by taxes but that health-care is not a benefit to society and that those who cannot pay for it do not deserve it. One blogger actually compared health-care to purchasing an iPhone or a car: a luxury consumer good that one shouldn't have if one can't pay for it. That makes sense using the "lens" of capitalistic values to make my ethical judgments. If I use the "lens" of doing unto others as I would have them do to me, I come up with a whole different opinion about the value of health-care to society.
In many ways, I'm still a "foreigner" here in the US and one of the things that has struck me is how much capitalism appears to be for many people in the US a belief system as well as a way of running an economy. After twenty years working in the equity markets, my own opinion is that capitalism is, historically, the least worst way of running an economy that human history has devised.
It's also my opinion however, that as a belief system, capitalism stinks. And I believe that capitalism is the number one belief system held by US society. Christians may say that they believe in the Lordship of Christ, but in actual fact we believe in the Lordship of Profits. We prove this every day by the way we live our lives.
I think that there are historic reasons for many of our economic beliefs. The rule of King George III in raising taxes in America for his own selfish empire building had much to do with establishing the idea that taxation is stealing. The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence was almost "life, liberty and the pursuit of profit"; so this value has a 200+ year history in US society.
And, of course, the Cold War which was actually a clash of super-powers was characterized in the US as "The good and moral values of capitalism versus the bad and immoral values of socialism/communism". In US culture, "democracy" and "capitalism" are seen as synonymous by many even though they are not. In US culture, "totalitarianism" and "socialism" are seen as synonymous even though they are not. And the worst conflation of all is the idea that Christianity and the pursuit of profits (capitalism's value system as opposed to its operating system) are synonymous.
Let's be really simplistic here. Jesus said that the greatest of all commandments is "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" (basically, The Golden Rule). Capitalism says that all businesses must be run for the highest risk/reward ratio - for the highest profit. Therefore Capitalism's value system cannot be the focus of Christian behavior or of Christian ethical reasoning.
Rather than testing every social venture by the test of "Will this venture make the highest profit for the capital that has been invested?", Jesus' teachings require Christians to use the test of "Will this venture benefit the citizens of this country/State/city/county in aggregate?" I appreciate that determining aggregate social benefit is another complex ethical problem but I don't think that we can abdicate the responsibility of making that moral determination by simply defaulting to the standard of profit. "Oh, it's too difficult to decide what it means for society to 'benefit' from health-care, so let's just run our health-care system on the basis that all providers should make as much as they can from their investment."
We do already recognize that some services to society are too important to leave to individuals to either perform or to raise money for. And, historically, many of these things were once left to individuals: policing, fire-fighting and education. It's a mystery to me how we can argue that education is of benefit to society and should be paid for by taxes but that health-care is not a benefit to society and that those who cannot pay for it do not deserve it. One blogger actually compared health-care to purchasing an iPhone or a car: a luxury consumer good that one shouldn't have if one can't pay for it. That makes sense using the "lens" of capitalistic values to make my ethical judgments. If I use the "lens" of doing unto others as I would have them do to me, I come up with a whole different opinion about the value of health-care to society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
