Economics Criticizing Capitalism by Edward Feser

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
The first thing that needs to be done in addressing these issues is to disambiguate the term "capitalism" so that we know exactly what we are talking about. It's one of those hot button terms that is used too loosely and polemically by both critics and defenders, and I don't think it is helpful to begin by asking about "alternatives" to capitalism before it's made clear exactly what one means by capitalism. The popes of the great social encyclicals -- e.g. Leo XIII, Pius XI, and John Paul II -- are always careful to emphasize that there are different strands in the modern so-called capitalist economic order that need to be carefully distinguished, and that just as it is wrong to endorse all of them uncritically, it is also a mistake to condemn them all en masse.

Consider that, when people hear the word "capitalism," some of the things they might have in mind are:

1. Private property, including in the basic means of production
2. Market competition
3. The existence of corporations as legal persons
4. Inequalities in wealth and income
5. An economic order primarily oriented to the private sector, with government acting at the margins and only where necessary

Now, there is nothing wrong with any of this
per se. Indeed, some of it is required as a matter of natural law (e.g. property as an institution, subsidiarity).

On the other hand, other people using the term might have in mind things like:

6. Doctrinaire laissez-faire
7. The market as the dominant social institution, with an ethos of consumerism and commodification of everything as its sequel
8. Corporations so powerful that they are effectively unanswerable to government or public opinion
9. Doctrinaire minimalization or even elimination of social welfare institutions, even when there is no feasible private sector alternative
10. Globalization of a kind that entails dissolution of corporate and individual loyalties to the nation state

Now, these things are all bad and should be opposed on natural law grounds.

The list is not meant to be exhaustive, but just illustrative. And what they illustrate is that it is just unhelpful to talk about either embracing or rejecting capitalism full stop. And the way the issue is usually framed generates heat and reduces light. When people say "I support capitalism," they often mean "I support 1-5" but their opponents hear them as saying "I support 6-10." And when people say "I oppose capitalism," they often mean "I oppose 6-10," but their opponents hear them as saying "I oppose 1-5."

An important further issue, of course, is whether you can in principle or in practice have (all of) 1-5 without (at least some of) 6-10. To analyze this issue no doubt requires further disambiguation.

Anyway, as this shows, the issue is more complex than many friends and critics of capitalism realize.


Taken from a comment by philosopher Edward Feser.

Read the full article: Adventures in the Old Atheism, Part IV: Marx
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
One thing that struck out to me in the article is the elaboration of the Marxist critique of religion.

Essentially religion is simply a palliative that makes life bearable for the oppressed.

I have never seen conservatives actually tackle this central point Marx makes. Religion serves a role in the social order, if people believe their suffering will be rewarded in the hereafter they won't rise up and say string up their bosses and landlords.

Now this criticism actually isn't saying religion isn't true ontologically speaking-Christianity or Islam may be the "true religion" metaphysically, the notion religion is false is implicit in Marxian materialism-assumed that there is no spirit only matter. But this criticism doesn't address this.

The question is, "religion true or not-is Marx right here?" "Is it a palliative for an unjust society?"

If a certain religion is true, than it follows Marxian materialism's metaphysical assumptions are false, but the analysis of religion's social role does not necessarily follow from this premise.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
The question is, "religion true or not-is Marx right here?" "Is it a palliative for an unjust society?"

If a certain religion is true, than it follows Marxian materialism's metaphysical assumptions are false, but the analysis of religion's social role does not necessarily follow from this premise.
First, as the article mentions, Marx’s critique of capitalism wasn’t moral. He’d say capitalism as a system is bad for human beings living under that system the same way ripping bark off a tree is bad for the tree. It’s a non-moral sort of badness. Of course, under Natural Law premises, the distinction between non-moral goodness and moral goodness in humans is non-existent. But Marx is a materialist-atheist, so he’s not inclined towards natural law philosophy.

Second, Marx is wrong in saying religion is a palliative for an unjust system. Certainly, religion can act like that in the same way other goods can make a bad situation better. But religions emerge from a combination of man’s natural desire for transcendence and the inertia of human tradition. Human beings desired something beyond this world and created techniques and practices to acquire it. These techniques are further refined over time and are passed on generation after generation until they become a tradition. When that happens, you get a religion.

Now, from an atheistic perspective, one could say that religion is a palliative for human suffering, but it isn’t primarily the pain of unjust societies that it’s supposed to alleviate, but the pain of existence itself. See, if we have an inborn desire for the transcendent and there is nothing to satisfy that desire, then we will always have this frustration. We will always be restless and unhappy because on of our core, natural desires can never be fulfilled.

I think this point is overlooked by Marxists because of their economic reductionism. They have the motto “it’s the economy, stupid.” Fix the economic conditions, and we’ll be living in communism, guys! Paradise is just a revolution away!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top