Pope Francis recently took issue with neoliberalism and related pseudo theory called trickle-down economics,
which is designed to mask abject inequality usually created by neoliberal regimes (and resulting National
Security State, where under the disguise of protecting citizens from terrorism protects top 1%
financial gains).
He stressed that so-called
supply side economics is a smoke screen for redistribution of wealth up by the financial oligarchy.
As Eugene Patrick Devany noted in his comment to Paul Krugman's post
The Case for Techno-optimism
(Nov 27, 2013. NYT):
It seems that, "a persistent shortfall on the demand side" is a euphemism for the fact that
half
the population will remain near bankruptcy for quite sometime.
Pope Francis said two days ago
"To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others ... a globalization of indifference has developed.
Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion ..."
One may consider the Pope less qualified to "pontificate" about technology than Prof. Krugman
who "tracks technology" and sees that "smart machines are getting much better at interacting with
the natural environment in all its complexity ... [and concluding] that a real transformative leap
is somewhere over the horizon" Pope Francis said,
"This epochal change has been set in motion by the enormous qualitative, quantitative, rapid
and cumulative advances occurring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant application
in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge and information, which
has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power."
"This epochal change" seems to be a reference to "fear and desperation, even in the so-called
rich countries" and to people forced to live "with precious little dignity".
The "anonymous kinds of power" could be a reference to "American Exceptionalism" - that connotes
business success to Americans and unbridled power to many developing countries.
The best description of supply side or “trickle down” economics I ever heard was by JK Galbraith:
“trickle down economics is the idea that if you feed the horse enough oats eventually some will
pass through to the road for the sparrows.”
That makes the Pope an economic realist ;-).
Not everybody was convinced by the sermon. Some suggested that Pope subject himself to a mortal danger
proselytizing this way:
Uh oh. The guy clearly doesn't understand that the church elects Popes
for the same job as any other politician in any other system--to uphold the world order that
benefits the upmost 1% everywhere. His job is to keep the proles in their place and keep them
convinced they shouldn't try to change it. The last thing they want is for a guy in his position
to genuinely believe all that stuff about Jesus's teachings and helping the poor. I can't
help fearing for his safety if this keeps up.
Skylark Everdeen -> Phil429
I would employ many food tasters if I were Pope Francis I.
Skylark Everdeen -> Liberator37
I am an atheist but I applaud one thing Francis I did, one of his first
acts as pontiff: he fired the Vatican accountants and ordered an audit to clean up all of the
dirty deals.
I think the reason people find it so hard to believe that Francis I might actually be a good
person is that we so rarely see one in a position of power.
jayant
He may understand economics, but does he understand capitalists? They
are not interested equality or justice. Their aim is maximisation of profit by all means necessary
and reap big bonuses and golden parachutes.
So in the end it will be simply words with little or no effect. Good
for the church's image re-branding PR exercise though.
Quotes
... Such an [neoliberal] economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly
homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case
of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is
a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest,
where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded
and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created
a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression,
but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in
which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised
– they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic
growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness
in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve
trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing
economic system.
Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others,
or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost
without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor,
weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s
responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market
offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity
seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its
dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact
that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have
created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a
new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking
a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances
and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone:
consumption.
56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the
majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies
which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they
reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.
A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes
its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to
realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power.
To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide
dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour
everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment,
is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.
57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be
viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes
money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement
of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside
of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable,
unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from
all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about
balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political
leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor
is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but
theirs”.[55]
58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach
on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to
the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The
Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that
the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of
economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.
59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality
in society and between peoples is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and
the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression
and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether
local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes
or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility.
This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from
the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread,
the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine
any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences,
an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death.
It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better
future. We are far from the so-called “end of history”, since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful
development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.
60. Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled
consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually
engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. This serves only
to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that
weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply
content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging
in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize
them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in
the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments,
businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.
"... The Russians say that the preposterous Protestant fundamentalist evangelicalism is a "pseudo-religion that represents Western egoism and noting more." This type of Protestantism is obviously anti-Christian at its very core, but this is precisely the type of bastardized and heretical Christianity that would be expected to unfold in the radical individualist atmosphere of the US. ..."
"... You may be interested to know that many Russian Orthodox Christians think the radical individualist Libertarianism so popular in the US is actually "Satanic." What they mean by that is that it is the polar opposite of the Church's teaching. ..."
"... You can have Christ or you can have Mammon. Which do you choose to worship? You surely cannot worship both. ..."
"... The modern economy is built largely on fraud; it creates money out of thin air. Who's going to pay for all of this? Why, the simple worker is going to, who produces the value behind all of this bubble. We need a fair economic system where money and capital are equivalent, and are the expression of real work. ..."
The truth is that neoliberalism really does against the teaching of the Church, especially the Orthodox and Catholic branches
of the Church which adhere more to the true religion.
The Russians say that the preposterous Protestant fundamentalist evangelicalism is a "pseudo-religion that represents Western
egoism and noting more." This type of Protestantism is obviously anti-Christian at its very core, but this is precisely the type
of bastardized and heretical Christianity that would be expected to unfold in the radical individualist atmosphere of the US.
You may be interested to know that many Russian Orthodox Christians think the radical individualist Libertarianism so popular
in the US is actually "Satanic." What they mean by that is that it is the polar opposite of the Church's teaching.
... You can have Christ or you can have Mammon. Which do you choose to worship? You surely cannot worship both.
Moscow Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church:
The modern economy is built largely on fraud; it creates money out of thin air. Who's going to pay for all of this? Why,
the simple worker is going to, who produces the value behind all of this bubble. We need a fair economic system where money and
capital are equivalent, and are the expression of real work.
His Holiness Kirill Gundyaev Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias
"... As our society rushes toward technological ataraxia , it may do us some good to ponder the costs of what has become Silicon Valley's new religious covenant. For the enlightened technocrat and the venture capitalist, God is long dead and buried, democracy sundered, the American dream lost. These beliefs they keep hush-hushed, out of earshot of their consumer base. Best not to run afoul of the millions of middle-class Americans who have developed slavish devotions to their smartphones and tablets and Echo Dots, pouring billions into the coffers of the ballooning technocracy. ..."
"... The problem with Silicon Valley elites is a bit simpler than that. They are all very smart, but their knowledge is limited. They know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition. Hence they see everything as an engineering problem, something with an optimal, measurable solution. ..."
"... As Tucker Carlson is realizing, Artificial Intelligence eliminating around 55% of all jobs (as the Future of Employment study found) so that wealthy people can have more disposable income to demand other services also provided by robots is madness. This is religious devotion either to defacto anarcho-capitalism, transhumanism, or both. ..."
"... @TheSnark -- valid observation: The Silicon Valley elites " know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition." Religion is not an engineering issue. Knowing a little about history, philosophy, human condition would help them to understand that humans need something for their soul. And the human soul is not described by boolean "1"s or "0"s ..."
"... Zuckerberg's comment about the Roman Empire is bizzare.to say the least. Augustus didn't create "200 years of peace". The Roman Empire was constantly conquering its neighbors. And of the first 5 Roman Emperors, Augustus was the only one who defintly died of natural causes ..."
"... This time period was an extremely violent time period. The fact that Zuckerberg doesn't realize this, indicates to me that while he is smart at creating a business, he is basically a pseudo-intellectual ..."
They've rejected God and tradition in favor of an egoistic radicalism that sees their fellow man as expendable.
As our society rushes toward technological ataraxia , it may do us some good to ponder the costs of what has become
Silicon Valley's new religious covenant. For the enlightened technocrat and the venture capitalist, God is long dead and buried,
democracy sundered, the American dream lost. These beliefs they keep hush-hushed, out of earshot of their consumer base. Best not
to run afoul of the millions of middle-class Americans who have developed slavish devotions to their smartphones and tablets and
Echo Dots, pouring billions into the coffers of the ballooning technocracy.
While Silicon Valley types delay giving their own children screens, knowing full well their deleterious effects on cognitive and
social development (not to mention their addictive qualities), they hardly bat an eye when handing these gadgets to our middle class.
Some of our Silicon oligarchs have gone so far as to call these products "demonic," yet on they go ushering them into schools, ruthlessly
agnostic as to whatever reckoning this might have for future generations.
As they do this, their political views seem to become more radical by the day. They as a class represent the junction of meritocracy
and the soft nihilism that has infiltrated almost every major institution in contemporary society. By day they inveigh against guns
and walls and inequality; by night they decamp into multimillion-dollar bunkers, safeguarded against the rest of the world, shamelessly
indifferent to their blatant hypocrisy. This cognitive dissonance results in a plundering worldview, one whose consequences are not
yet fully understood but are certainly catastrophic. Its early casualties already include some of the most fundamental elements of
American civil society: privacy, freedom of thought, even truth itself.
Hence a recent
New York Times profile of Silicon Valley's anointed guru, Yuval Harari. Harari is an Israeli futurist-philosopher whose apocalyptic
forecasts, made in books like Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow , have tantalized some of the biggest names on the political
and business scenes, including Barack Obama, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg. The Times portrays Harari as gloomy about the
modern world and especially its embrace of technology:
Part of the reason might be that Silicon Valley, at a certain level, is not optimistic on the future of democracy. The more
of a mess Washington becomes, the more interested the tech world is in creating something else, and it might not look like elected
representation. Rank-and-file coders have long been wary of regulation and curious about alternative forms of government. A separatist
streak runs through the place: Venture capitalists periodically call for California to secede or shatter, or for the creation
of corporate nation-states. And this summer, Mark Zuckerberg, who has recommended Mr. Harari to his book club, acknowledged a
fixation with the autocrat Caesar Augustus. "Basically," Mr. Zuckerberg told The New Yorker, "through a really harsh approach,
he established 200 years of world peace."
Harari understands that liberal democracy is in peril, and he's taken it upon himself to act as a foil to the anxieties of the
elite class. In return, they regale him with lavish dinner parties and treat him like their maharishi. Yet from reading the article,
one gets the impression that, at least in Harari's view, this is but a facade, or what psychologists call "reaction formation." In
other words, by paying lip service to Harari, who is skeptical of their designs, our elites hope to spare themselves from incurring
any moral responsibility for the costs of their social engineering. And "social engineering" is not a farfetched term to use. A portion
of the Times article interrogates the premise of Aldous Huxley's dystopian 1932 novel Brave New World , which tells
the story of a totalitarian regime that has anesthetized a docile underclass into blind submission:
As we boarded the black gull-wing Tesla Mr. Harari had rented for his visit, he brought up Aldous Huxley. Generations have
been horrified by his novel "Brave New World," which depicts a regime of emotion control and painless consumption. Readers who
encounter the book today, Mr. Harari said, often think it sounds great. "Everything is so nice, and in that way it is an intellectually
disturbing book because you're really hard-pressed to explain what's wrong with it," he said. "And you do get today a vision coming
out of some people in Silicon Valley which goes in that direction."
Here, Harari divulges with brutal frankness the indisputable link between private atheism and political thought. Lacking an immutable
ontology, man is left in the desert, unmoored from anything to keep his insatiable passions in check. His pride entices him into
playing the role of God.
At one point in the article, Harari wonders why we should even maintain a low-skilled "useless" class, whose work is doomed to
disappear over the next several decades, replaced by artificial intelligence. "You're totally expendable," Harari tells his audience.
This is why, the Times says, the Silicon elites recommend social engineering solutions like universal income to try and mitigate
the more unpleasant effects of that "useless" class. They seem unaware (or at least they're incapable of admitting) that human nature
is imperfect, sinful, and can never be perfected from on high. Since many of the Silicon breed reject the possibility of a
timeless, intelligent metaphysics (to say nothing of Christianity), such truisms about our natures go over their heads. Metaphysics
aside, the fact that our elites are even thinking this way to begin with -- that technology may render an entire underclass "expendable"
-- is in itself cause for concern. (As Keynes once quipped, "In the long run we are all dead.")
Harari seems to have a vendetta against traditions -- which can be extrapolated to the tradition of Western civilization writ
large -- for long considering homosexuality aberrant. He is quoted as saying, "If society got this thing wrong, who guarantees it
didn't get everything else wrong as well?" Thus do the Silicon elites have the audacity to shirk their entire Western birthright,
handed down to them across generations, in the name of creating a utopia oriented around a modern, hyper-individualistic view of
man.
When man abandons God, he begins to channel his religious desire, more devouring than even his sexual instinct, into other worldly
outlets. Thus has modern liberalism evolved from a political school of thought into an out-and-out ecclesiology, one that perverts
elements of Christian dogma into technocratic channels. (Of course, one can debate whether this was liberalism's intent in the first
place.) Our elites have crafted for themselves a new religion. Humility to them is nothing more than a vice.
The reason the elites are entertaining alternatives to democracy is because they know that so long as we adhere to constitutional
government -- our American system, even in its severely compromised form -- we are bound to the utterly natural constraints hardwired
by our framers (who, by the way, revered Aristotle and Jesus). Realizing this, they seek alternative forms in Silicon Valley social
engineering projects, hoping to create a regime that will conform to their megalomaniacal fancies.
If there is a silver lining in all this, it's that in the real word, any such attempt to base a political regime on naked ego
is bound to fail. Such things have been tried before, in our lifetimes, no less, and they have never worked because they cannot work.
Man should never be made the center of the universe because, per impossible, there is already a natural order that cannot
be breached. May he come to realize this sooner rather than later. And may Mr. Harari's wildest nightmares never come to fruition.
Paul Ingrassia is a co-host of the Right on Point podcast. To listen to his podcast, click
here .
"in the real word, any such attempt to base a political regime on naked ego is bound to fail. Such things have been tried before,
in our lifetimes, no less, and they have never worked because they cannot work."
But they can create hells on earth for many decades, in which millions are consumed, until played out.
As Kipling so aptly put it, in the final stanzas of a poem:
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
"The reason the elites are entertaining alternatives to democracy is because they know that so long as we adhere to constitutional
government -- our American system, even in its severely compromised form -- we are bound to the utterly natural constraints hardwired
by our framers (who, by the way, revered Aristotle and Jesus)."
Um, you do know that one of the gravest dangers the founders feared was democracy? And the bulwarks they put in place are all
meant to constraint majority rule? Now, if the argument you are making that the elites have so corrupted the hoi polloi that only
rule by a minority of REAL AMERICANS can save us, say so, don't do the idiotic dodge of invoking democratic arguments while obviously
advocating minority rule.
The problem with Silicon Valley elites is a bit simpler than that. They are all very smart, but their knowledge is limited.
They know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition.
Hence they see everything as an engineering problem, something with an optimal, measurable solution.
As a result, they do not even understand the systems they have built; witness Zuckerberg struggling to get Facebook under control.
If they go the way the author fears it will be by accident, not design. Despite their smarts, they really don't know what they
are doing in terms of society.
As Tucker Carlson is realizing, Artificial Intelligence eliminating around 55% of all jobs (as the Future of Employment study
found) so that wealthy people can have more disposable income to demand other services also provided by robots is madness. This
is religious devotion either to defacto anarcho-capitalism, transhumanism, or both.
They're literally selling out human existence for their own myopic short-term gain, yet have a moral superiority complex.
I suppose the consensus is that the useless class gets welfare depending on their social credit score. Maybe sterilization will
lead to a higher social credits score. Dark days are coming.
@TheSnark -- valid observation: The Silicon Valley elites " know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but
know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition." Religion is not an engineering issue. Knowing a little about history,
philosophy, human condition would help them to understand that humans need something for their soul. And the human soul is not
described by boolean "1"s or "0"s
Western Culture is struggling to adapt to the new communication technologies that inhabit the Internet. That the developers of
these technologies see themselves as gods of a sort is entirely consistent with human history and nature.
The best historical example of how new communication technology can change society occurred about 500 years ago, when the printing
press was developed in Europe. A theologian and professor named Martin Luther (Perhaps you have heard of him?) composed a list
of 95 discussion questions regarding the then-current activities of The Church. That list, known as the "95 Theses" was posted
on the chapel door in Wittenburg, Germany. Before long, the list was transcribed and published. The list, and many responses,
were distributed throughout Europe. The Protestant Reformation was sparked.
The Press and Protestant Reformation it launched remains a primary foundation of today's Western Culture. It has initiated
much violence, much dissension, war with millions of deaths, The Enlightenment, and much else. The printing press ushered in the
modern era.
Just as the printing press enabled profound change in the world 500 years ago, The Internet is prompting similar disruption
today. I think we are in the early stages, and estimate that our great great grandchildren will be among the first to fully appreciate
what has been gained and lost as a result of this technology.
So the arrogance of religious believers convinced that they know "the TRUTH!", are the only ones to do so, and are justified in
forcing non-believers to act as "God says!" is to be completely ignored?
Methinks we're seeing a huge case of projection here .
The problem is also that once those religious foundations are gone, they don't come back easily. How can you talk to an atheist/muslim/buddhist
who doesn't even believe that lying is always sin? People in the west have started to think that all our nice freedoms and comfort
have magically come from the heart of humans, that we are all somehow equal and want the same things but the bible tells us the
real story: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.
Then we have religions who fundamentally do not even view death as a problem. Now this is where we enter the danger zone. In
the west we have lived on such a good, superior Christian foundation we seem to have forgotten how truly horrible and inferior
the alternatives are. Suddenly you get people who endorse cannibalism and child sacrifice again, I have seen this myself. How
do you even explain to somebody that this is wrong when he fundamentally disagrees on the morality of killing?
People don't understand that Christian morality was hard fought for, they refuse to understand that human beings do not have
a magical switch that makes them disapprove of murder.
Thousands were burned alive in England just for wanting to read the bible. It is like a technological innovation. We found
a trick in the human condition, we discovered the truth about humanity. Now these coddled silicon valley people who have grown
up in a Christian society with Christian morality and protections in their arrogance think that Christian behavior is the base
of human morality anyway and needs no protection. Thanks to them in no small part the entire world is currently doing its utmost
to reject the reality of the bible. We see insane propositions that say we should not judge people. Or that everyone is equal.
Of course the bible never says that with the meaning they imply, but it was coopted beautifully for their own evil agenda. Yes
evil, did I mention that our technocratic genius overlords don't believe in that either?
How can you talk with somebody that has rejected the most base truths of human life. How can you say a murderer is equal to
a non-criminal? You must understand that these new age fake Christians truly think like this, they truly believe that everyone
is equal. You can't allow yourself to think that 'oh they just mean we are all equal like.. on a human level, in our humanity'.
Nono, I made the mistake to be too charitable with them. They actually think we are all equal no matter what. I found it hard
to believe that we have degenerated so much, I have been in a quasi state of shock for a long time over this.
Zuckerberg's comment about the Roman Empire is bizzare.to say the least. Augustus didn't create "200 years of peace". The
Roman Empire was constantly conquering its neighbors. And of the first 5 Roman Emperors, Augustus was the only one who defintly
died of natural causes
This time period was an extremely violent time period. The fact that Zuckerberg doesn't realize this, indicates to me that
while he is smart at creating a business, he is basically a pseudo-intellectual
"Russian Orthodox Church says smartphones a harbinger of the Antichrist"
"MOSCOW (AP) -- The head of the Russian Orthodox Church says the data-gathering capacity
of devices such as smartphones risks bringing humanity closer to the arrival of the
Antichrist.
In an interview shown Monday on state TV, Patriarch Kirill said the church does not oppose
technological progress but is concerned that "someone can know exactly where you are, know
exactly what you are interested in, know exactly what you are afraid of" and that such
information could be used for centralized control of the world.
"Control from one point is a foreshadowing of the coming of Antichrist, if we talk about
the Christian view. Antichrist is the person who will be at the head of the world wide web
that controls the entire human race," he said."
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
Criticism of neoliberal globalization cannot only be economic; it must also be theological.
Theological analysis formed part of two workshops in which the WCC covered the theme of
alternatives to economic globalization. "We have seen that the neoliberal paradigm is a new
Tower of Babel, an arrogant project that aims to impose a uniformity that is contrary to God's
will for a kingdom that respects diversity", stated Mshana. "The churches have a great
opportunity here for prophetic condemnation and education."
Participants at the workshops agreed that in matters such as access to clean water, "when it
comes to choosing between the technical or the ethical approach, between the market or human
rights, priority must go to the latter", Mshana stated. The churches can therefore make a
valuable contribution: "The churches must work very hard to bring pressure to bear on the
international financial institutions not just to go along with the market solution".
The workshops also tackled the subjects of world trade, the international financial system
and debt, all of which, in their present form, are harmful to the poor. With regard to trade,
participants gave their backing to campaigns for fair trade like the Trade for people, not
people for trade campaign sponsored by the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance.
As for the international financial system - "a lottery whose winnings flow from the South to
the North", according to Mshana's definition - the general consensus was that it needed to be
reformed. Mechanisms need to be put in place to limit the arbitrary movement of speculative
capital and make sure that the capital invested in poor countries actually stays there and is
used for development.
As far as the new methods of debt cancellation are concerned, "these are inadequate and do
not solve the problem", Mshana explained. "What is needed is total cancellation and the
introduction of a whole new system". One striking proposal was for an International Court under
the aegis of the United Nations to judge the legitimacy of debts, taking into account the joint
responsibility of debtors and creditors.
We confess that the whole of Creation bears the marks of God. God is our Creator; we love
God, all of Creation and one another. We see that God wants the world to be a circle where
everyone has a place. However, in North America, we have failed to live out our love.
While we have failed to live out our love, corporations have pursued violent development
grabbing air, land and water; drowning islands; desertifying lands; violating human rights; and
creating conditions of war.
While we have failed to live out our love, international financial institutions like the
International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization have enforced finance and
trade policies which have indebted nations and forced them to service social and economic debt
rather than their people and Earth.
In our limitless pursuit of individual and national wealth and power, we are complicit in a
market system that exploits natural resources and people within and beyond our borders:
When temporary foreign workers care for our children and grandparents, work on our farms,
receive low wages, work long hours, live and work in harsh conditions, are vulnerable to abuse,
have their human rights violated, fill other jobs that the common excuse says: "no North
American would do";
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; and we have done those
things which we ought not to have done.
When companies designate landfills and chemical dumps in the neighbourhoods of poor and
marginalized people;
When US and Canadian corporations extract minerals and resources from other countries in
order to operate without environmental safeguards or labour codes, do not pay their fair share
of taxes and royalties, and use paramilitary forces against protesters and to displace
indigenous communities;
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; and we have done those
things which we ought not to have done.
When those who have contributed the least to greenhouse gas emissions are the first to
suffer the effects of climate change, and we demand that they reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions without taking care of our own;
When we have watched the increased reliance on the military to pursue national
self-interest, defend corporate interests, and cause forced migration in the rest of the
world;
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; and we have done those
things which we ought not to have done.
For too long, we have said and done too little. We have prioritized profit at the expense of
clean air and water, devastated species and ecosystems, devalued people and their cultures,
enriched the wealthy few and impoverished the poorest in our society and the global family.
These examples demonstrate the ecological debt we owe to Earth and the ecological
indebtedness of the rich to the poor. The cry of Earth and the poor are one.
Wisdom
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from
the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city. On either side
of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, producing its fruit each
month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. ( Revelation
22:1-2)
We are compelled and inspired by this vision of hope with respect to poverty, wealth and
ecology, a new vision of Earth and the people who are dependent upon its abundance.
The great tree, echoing Genesis description of an idyllic garden, spans the river of the
water of life. This image evokes not a singular tree but a vast, verdant forest that provides
twelve kinds of fruit. In this way, the tree will bring food for all of God's people every
month of the year. The vision of a redeemed Creation is one of a healthy Earth that will bring
healing to the nations.
We have heard the wisdom of the worker, the scientist, the ancestor, the great tree, the
river of the water of life. We have heard the wisdom of Your whole Creation calling us toward
healing.
There is a new world in the making. You are working on behalf of Your people and restoring
the good Earth You created. This world matters as do people's concrete struggles within it. It
is our reminder to care for each other and all of Creation. You are a God of redemption, not of
destruction, and invite us to participate in redemptive acts.
Healing
Creator, You endowed all of Your Creation with dignity, including human beings, a shining
strand in the glimmering web of life.
Yet today, Creation is not the way it is supposed to be. We've seen the toxic pools, the
gouged Earth, the forecasts of increased global average temperatures that will permanently
change life on Earth. Climate change is the enveloping reality we live in.
We are alarmed by the increased concentration of wealth owned by a few. We know that poverty
strips dignity away.
We have put our faith in what we have created – idols of gold and silver, luxury and
consumer goods, markets and technology - rather than in You, our Creator.
Creator, enliven our imaginations to restore Your Creation. Heal our broken lives and
communities.
Redeemer, save us from our greed, and the structures, policies and laws we've established
that sustain and protect unearned privilege. We have heard the indictment in the gospel of
Luke: "we take what we did not deposit, we reap what we did not sow." Already, we are taking
more than Earth can offer, and returning more waste than Earth can absorb.
Save us from a "prosperity" gospel that neglects Your radical gospel of justice and hope for
all.
Redeemer, grant us the courage to restore Your Creation. Heal our broken lives and
communities.
Holy Spirit, come quickly. We are poor, we are rich; we are oppressed, we are oppressors.
Reconcile us to one another, reconcile us with Earth. May the churches we represent be agents
of reconciliation, centres for caring communities and shared sacrifice, models of an ethic of
solidarity with future generations and our neighbours. Light us with a passion for justice,
peace and solidarity.
Holy Spirit, breathe into us the passion to work together, to restore Your Creation. Heal
our broken lives and communities.
Thanksgiving
We give thanks for young people who are inventing new forms of resistance to greed and
injustice through forums like the Occupy movement and the "people's microphone."
We give thanks for the prophets among us who challenge our idolatry of the unregulated
Market and who confront us with our addiction to the carbon economy.
We give thanks for the elders among us, who help us remember a time when it wasn't always
like this; who call on the community's invisible heart to counter the Market's invisible hand;
who help us to remember what a moral economy looks like.
We give thanks for the witness of those of our ancestors who have taught us our rightful
place in Creation and who have spoken truth to power; who understood that Christ is found among
those who are hungry, homeless, imprisoned and downtrodden.
We give thanks for our ecumenical partners who continue to deepen our common witness based
on ecojustice principles of solidarity, sufficiency, sustainability and equity in the economy
and Earth.
We give thanks for the power of being together, and for all those friends and allies who
help us to remember who we are as a justice loving people.
************
Vision & Action
Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so that a runner may read it.For
there is still a vision (Habbakuk 2: 2-3)
We see a time of new beginnings, of Jubilee, when greenhouse gases in the atmosphere no
longer threaten life, when the carbon economy has been transformed, and we no longer mortgage
our children's future. We see a time when unsustainable development has been rejected in favour
of just, participatory and sustainable communities. We see a time when Earth has begun its
regeneration and like God with Noah, we have covenanted with God and Creation to never destroy
it again.
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have
works? (James 2:14)
We commit ourselves to lives of integrity and justice where we share all God's resources
equitably, reduce our carbon footprint, seek right relationship in our economic transactions
and strengthen the campaign for climate justice.
We call on churches, interfaith partners and all people of goodwill to work together to
achieve this timeless and compelling vision. In order to mobilize appropriate resources and as
a first step we call on the World Council of Churches, its member churches, and its sister
ecumenical bodies to undertake a decade of action on ecojustice encompassing both ecological
and economic justice.
We call on our North American churches to take action to transition from carbon-based to
renewable energy, to narrow the gap between those of us who are rich and those of us who are
poor, to respond to the needs of climate refugees, to hold their pension fund and investment
managers accountable for the ethical implications of their investments, and to advocate for
policies that will restore ecological balance.
We call on businesses and industries to commit to principles of integrity by complying with
human rights codes; by shifting investments from carbon-based to renewable energy; and by
showing leadership in reducing the gap between the rich and the poor by paying fair wages and
paying their fair share of taxes.
We call on our governments to govern with integrity by implementing a moratorium on further
development of the tar sands; compelling corporations to operate with the highest available
environmental and labour standards wherever they do business on the globe; prohibiting
excessive interest rates; legislating an international financial transactions tax to begin to
make restitution for ecological debt; reallocating budgets from the military and systems of
death and destruction to systems that promote the abundance of life; working for a new
financial architecture; and ensuring that commercial banking is clearly separated from
investment banking (speculative investments and financial transactions).
"... 47 representatives of churches from Central and Eastern Europe, along with resource persons, met June 24-28 in Budapest, Hungary. They were from Orthodox, Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, including a presenter delegated by the Council of the European Bishops' Conferences. In addition, 30 guests and staff persons of regional and international ecumenical and civil organizations from around the world were present. All these came to Budapest at the invitation of the World Council of Churches (WCC), the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC), the Conference of European Churches (CEC) and the WARC European Area Committee. Also accompanying the process was the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). The consultation is part of the joint process on globalization of these organizations that grew out of the call of the WARC General Council in 1997 in Debrecen, Hungary for "covenanting for justice in the economy and the earth (Processus Confessionis)" and the recommendations on globalization made by the General Assembly of the World Council Churches 1998 in Harare. It is the second in a series of regional meetings that began with a symposium in Bangkok and will continue with meetings of churches in the Pacific, Western Europe, Latin America, Africa and North America. The consultation was graciously supported and hosted by the Reformed Church in Hungary, and was held at the Reformed Theological College (Raday) of Budapest. ..."
"... The Foundations of the Social Concept of the ROC ..."
MESSAGE FROM THE JOINT CONSULTATION ON GLOBALIZATION IN CENTRAL
AND EASTERN EUROPE: RESPONSES TO THE ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES, JUNE, 24-28,
2001, BUDAPEST
47 representatives of churches from Central and Eastern Europe, along with resource
persons, met June 24-28 in Budapest, Hungary. They were from Orthodox, Protestant and Roman
Catholic churches, including a presenter delegated by the Council of the European Bishops'
Conferences. In addition, 30 guests and staff persons of regional and international ecumenical
and civil organizations from around the world were present. All these came to Budapest at the
invitation of the World Council of Churches (WCC), the World Alliance of Reformed Churches
(WARC), the Conference of European Churches (CEC) and the WARC European Area Committee. Also
accompanying the process was the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). The consultation is part of
the joint process on globalization of these organizations that grew out of the call of the WARC
General Council in 1997 in Debrecen, Hungary for "covenanting for justice in the economy and
the earth (Processus Confessionis)" and the recommendations on globalization made by the
General Assembly of the World Council Churches 1998 in Harare. It is the second in a series of
regional meetings that began with a symposium in Bangkok and will continue with meetings of
churches in the Pacific, Western Europe, Latin America, Africa and North America. The
consultation was graciously supported and hosted by the Reformed Church in Hungary, and was
held at the Reformed Theological College (Raday) of Budapest.
To be more
vigilant
About a decade ago, we, the people and churches in Central and Eastern Europe rejoiced as we
realized we were free. It was as if a deep shadow had passed by and that full daylight had
returned.
As we review the past ten years, it becomes clear that the magnitude and content of the
problems encountered have been grossly underestimated by both governments and churches. Also,
as we listen to reports from those whose suffering is most severe, we conclude that not all
their difficulties arise directly out of what happened more than ten years ago. This suggests
the need to be more vigilant in our journey with the women and men of Central and Eastern
Europe.
The countries in the region enjoy great cultural and religious diversity. We heard that some
of them show economic growth, increasing employment and environmental improvements according to
the data available. In the region as a whole, however, rising unemployment and the falling
value of pensions and wages has plunged millions of women and men into poverty. UNDP statistics
report (cf. United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report for Central and
Eastern Europe and CIS, New York 1999; http.//www.undp.org/rbec/publications) , that
1989 about 14 million people in the former communistic block lived on less than four
dollars a day. By the mid-nineties that number had risen to 147 million people.
At the same time, and in sharp contrast, there has developed a new feature, that of
excessive wealth for a small minority.
Life expectancy fell significantly in some of the countries.
Health care, schooling and education standards declined.
Commerce based criminality grew rapidly.
Search for explanations
In relation to these facts, we felt a moral duty to search more diligently for additional
explanations for the prevailing mood of disappointment and the sense of betrayal. Working in
groups, the consultation examined the ecological, cultural, economic and social effects of
globalization on the region. The groups produced reports including the analysis, evaluation and
proposals for alternative action, which are reflected in this message. They identified two main
reasons behind the present difficulties in the region.
First was the actual way in which the challenge of the transformation of society was handled
by most authorities after 1989. Whereas Communism had depended on unrestricted state planning,
politicians and leaders now embraced the unrestrained market-mechanism as the path to a better
future. They did not discern that a market without social, cultural, and institutional
frameworks would undermine the very fabric of society. Privatization, liberalization and
deregulation of the market for the sake of economic growth was made a prerequisite for
receiving external loans and financial assistance . This neo-liberal �shock therapy',
requiring a shrinking role for the state, simply disabled existing social provisions for
ordinary women and men.
Second was the dynamic released by the new global information and communication technologies
and the phenomenal expansion of new �global' markets. These are often labeled �
globalization '. It is a complex term. Where it refers to growing possibilities for genuine
co-operation between nations and peoples with opportunities for communication and common
action, it has a positive connotation. Our consultation, for instance, benefited greatly from
the participation of Christians from many continents.
It has negative connotations where it refers to the dominance exercised by an ideology
legitimizing and promoting the unrestrained activities of players in the global markets, and
the unprecedented concentration of financial power in the hands of self-appointed
�rulers'. The unregulated flow of capital becomes the arbiter of the economic goodness
or badness of all human or political actions. In our consultation we made a clear distinction
between this neo-liberal project, which some call � globalism ', and the historic
process of �globalization' already referred to. It is driven by powerful economic self
interest. It commercializes human and institutional relationships and the very sources of life;
the earth, water, air and even the human body itself. The ideology, power structures and
practices this project entails accounts for dramatic changes in the economies and societies of
Central and Eastern Europe. Its immediate effects are to put pressure on governments at all
levels to cut social, medical, educational and environmental expenditure in order to be
�attractive' in the eyes of �global' capital. Women and other vulnerable groups
bear the greatest burden of its consequences.
This ideological emphasis on privatisation at any price, has undermined existing
infrastructures. Minimising the role of the state, it left the poor without adequate protection
and support and opened the door to criminal and speculative activities. Irresponsible owners
who had no interest in the fate of either companies or employees bought out many of the newly
privatised enterprises and banks. Alternative paths to ownership were hardly considered, nor
the idea that ownership brings social obligations.
Justice to the poor
This confusion about �globalization' is often used as an alibi, not only by important
international agencies, such as the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank, but also a growing number
of national governments. They demand harsh sacrifices of ordinary women and men as indicated
already. They do this despite reliable evidence that economic growth fails to promote human
development unless there is
adequate support for the poor, unemployed, and other vulnerable groups;
environmental protection;
transparency and accountability in government, and
effective participation by civil society (including labor unions).
Given this situation, our meeting arrived at the unequivocal conclusion:
No authority inside or outside the region should ever escape its responsibility to do to
justice to the poor and the needy by claiming the unavoidability of the requirements of
globalization.
Policies justified in this way are contrary to both scientific findings and the core of
Christian faith. They have to stop unconditionally and immediately. For, as it is stated so
well in the recent Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church:
"...the danger of differences that may emerge between people's will and international
organization's decisions should not be underestimated. These organizations may become
instruments for the unfair dominion of strong over weak countries, rich over poor, the
technologically and informationally developed over the rest. They may also practice double
standards, by applying international law in the interest of more influential states. All this
compels the Orthodox Church to call the powers that be, both on national and international
levels, to utter responsibility." (cf. The Foundations of the Social
Concept of the ROC )
12. It is vitally important for Christians to recognize that dependence upon this
neo-liberal ideology has deeply spiritual implications. It compels every participant to invest
his or her faith in Mammon. The question for us is a simple one, in whom do we put our trust
and in whom do we believe. Faith in the God of life sets us free from domination by Mammon.
This is not only a domain where churches can speak, but should speak. This faith, translated
into appropriate actions, is the ground of hope against that despair which, until now, so
characterizes the present situation and not just in this region.
SERVE PEOPLE, NOT POWER
CALL TO GOVERNMENTS AND TO THE WIDER PUBLIC IN THE REGION
1. Globalization dramatically transforms the nature of power. Democratically elected
governments and their delegates in international organisations are increasingly losing power to
the growing influence of international bureaucracies, transnational corporations, media-owners
and actors in the field of financial �global' capital. We challenge these power
structures, urging them to become more transparent, accountable and representative. The peoples
of the world should seize control of global political and economic processes. Democracy should
be reinstated in the new forms of decision-making, at local, national and international
levels.
2. Many political and economic processes require some kind of regulation at the
international level. They should not be employed by the state at the expense of the necessary
protection of vulnerable people.
3. The guiding idea for all our recommendations is the Biblical motif of Jubilee (Lev 25, Dt
15,Neh 5,Jes 61, Luc 4). This implies that all people are entitled to the basic resources of
life and the public provision that enables them to live in the household (oikonomia) of God's
creation. The economy of our societies ought therefore to be always household-orientated.
This insight leads us to the following recommendations.
Recommendations
4. Global finance should not be allowed to monopolise the decisive role in national and
regional economies by rendering them over-dependent on Foreign Direct Investment and
speculative capital. We strongly recommend that governments persist in striving for the
development of their home-economy, with special attention to the role of medium and small
businesses, and warn them against prioritising export-orientation at their expense.
5. Local economic initiatives need to be supported. This implies the strengthening of local
governments. Public authorities at all levels should insist on the maintenance of adequate
social support for the poor and strong environmental standards and resist international
financial pressure to eliminate them. 6. We ask governments to support the international
actions of those governments and civil organisations which, in order to democratise the
international monetary system, seek to regulate the flow of speculative international capital.
We ask the same support, especially from the rich industrialised countries, for international
efforts (like in Rio and Kyoto) in favour of the environment.
7. Nations seeking entry to the European Union should equip their electorate to make
informed decisions through accurate and transparent evaluation of the impact on social security
and other vital interests of their citizens.
8. Governments should safeguard cultural values, the dignity and rights of all women and
men, and their unhindered development. Economic globalization in its present form threatens
values such as justice, charity, peace and sobriety which are rooted in Christian traditions.
It replaces them with the values of unrestrained consumerism and increasing commercialisation
(or monetisation) of society. Education, health care, arts, sports, the media, the environment
and even safety are increasingly dominated by financial considerations. The culture of economic
rivalry is usurping the culture of social co-operation with adverse consequences for weak and
vulnerable people.
9. Public resources, which from a Christian perspective are designed to serve the common
good, should not be ransomed to privatisation policies by governments whether or not they are
under pressure from external donors.
10. We ask governments to serve people, not power.
CHOOSE LIFE, NOT DEATH
A call to churches
1. Today we are confronted by the domination of the idols of competition, consumption and
comfort. The Christian understanding of oikonomia , of the world as God's household,
embraces relations between people and God, social harmony and peaceful coexistence of human
beings with the whole of God's creation. This urges churches and Christians to show the world
the example of living according to the principles of cooperation, interdependence and
compassion deeply rooted in the Trinitarian basis of our faith. We ask the Holy Spirit for the
gift of discernment by which to read the signs of our time and to �distinguish the
spirits'.
2. In challenging economic globalization the Church is confronted with Jesus' words, "You
cannot serve God and mammon." (Mt. 6:24). Will the churches have the courage to engage with the
�values' of a profit-orientated way of life as a matter of faith, or will they withdraw
to a private life? This is the question our churches must answer... or lose their very
soul!
3. The message of the Gospel and our traditions teach us neither to be acquiescent to the
dominant powers of this world, nor to escape the responsibilities into private expressions of
faith. Christian communities should radiate love, joy and peace, attract and call others to a
new way of life. Our mission is to transform life around us and to respond to all human beings,
especially those who are suffering, oppressed and marginalized. In doing so, we proclaim
Christ. We urge the churches to raise their prophetic voice so that changes are made for the
benefit every person in every part of the world.
4. Churches need to engage in a serious way with the following questions.
Which processes in international politics and the economy are caused by the intrinsic
development of trade, information flow, cultural exchange etc.? and
Which are the result of �forced global transformation' aimed at securing the
dominance of the richest countries, as well as economic and political groups?
What are the positive aspects of increasing international cooperation which can be
employed for advancing the Christian mission in word and deed?
How can Christian values, traditions and cultures be preserved and thrive in the context
of globalization?
5. Global economy and global power can be called to account by a global civil society
equipped for broad social advocacy. International Christian organizations can provide a basis
for cooperation open to and responsive to others, including research bodies, trade unions,
environmental movements, and communities of followers of world
faiths.
Recommendations
6. The negative social consequences of globalization must be counterbalanced by effective
attention to the needs of the poor, the vulnerable and the powerless.
We call upon churches:
To resist socially counterproductive policies, especially social and tax dumping and to
preserve the dignity of labour.
To support economic and cultural alternatives to homogenization, including small
businesses, local credit and savings mechanisms, independent information exchange systems,
with efforts to protect and revitalize national cultures and identities, through mutual
tolerance and dialogue.
To encourage a process of 'localization', by having regard for to the expectations,
traditions and lifestyles of people in their own place and supporting their initiatives.
To increase their efforts in the fields of charitable service and social advocacy.
To raise awareness that integration is accompanied by growing ethnic and religious
tension in some parts of the world and separation in others; and to investigate the roots of
these conflict situations, which lie not only in these specific regions, but also in the
field of international politics and economy.
7. We call the churches to remember that they are founded on families and therefore need
them to be strong. Family crises have been caused by forced industrialization and now by
globalization. The solution lies in a rediscovery moral values, the ties between the
generations, respect for parenthood and the place of women in families and society.
8. We call our churches to make the care of the environment a major priority for Christian
reflection and social action. It is the �sustainable society' and �sustainable
communities' rather than economics, which matter. The European Christian Environmental Network
is a useful contact.
9. We urge the churches in the region to increase public awareness about globalization and
its consequences for their population. People need to be informed about the nature of decisions
made by their governments in relation to international institutions, and must be able to
influence those decisions. Churches can empower the voice of ordinary people by raising their
concerns with the authorities.
10. Churches and ecumenical groups in the region are encouraged to use the expertise and
linkages that the Centre for Networking, Training and Development being established by European
Contact Group, the Work and Economy Network, and the Ecumenical Academy in Prague can
provide.
11. We ask churches in our region to respond more actively to WCC's invitation to reflect on
globalization and to search for alternatives to it; to CEC's process on the role of churches in
European integration and also to WARC's Debrecen call for Processus Confessionis - a committed
process of recognition, education and confession regarding economic injustice and ecological
destruction.
12. We call the churches in the West to resist the destructive forces of economic
globalization and to be advocates for global social justice.
We ask the churches and the people in the West to influence public opinion and to persuade
decision-makers in politics, economy and other sectors of society to stop the exploitation and
exclusion of the majority of the population of the world and the destruction of the earth by
the 'golden billion' - the population of Western industrialised countries.
14.We ask the churches to educate their members so that they may rediscover the traditional
Christian values of self-restraint and asceticism (simplicity of lifestyle), and to propagate
them in society as a way of counteracting individualism and consumerism, and as an alternative
foundation for economic and social development.
15. We strongly support the Message to the Churches in the North from the participants of
the Symposium on the Consequences of Economic Globalization (Bangkok, Thailand, November 12-15,
1999) that was shared at our meeting.
16.We assure the churches in the global South of our solidarity. Our part of Europe bears a
considerable measure of responsibility for many developments, with both good and bad
consequences, in Southern countries.
17.Today our peoples share many similar problems and challenges, and we deeply need each
other in order to find solutions. In the spirit of ecumenical partnership for mutual being we
call the WCC and other ecumenical organizations to support cooperation and networking between
churches in CEEurope and with churches in the global South through consultation on
globalization. 18. Global networking between Christians and others on the issues of
globalization is urgently needed, especially from parish to parish, from one group of
researchers to another, e.g. from a Reformed radio in Hungary to a Catholic newspaper in
Indonesia and a Moslem TV studio in Kazakhstan. Ecumenical and interfaith organizations will
play the key role in this network building. We should not let the spirit of this world separate
us. The difficult reality we are facing requires a response which we can only make
together.
19. We acknowledge the work done by Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Churches, as
well as international Christian organizations, which have studied the problems of globalization
and have acted in this regard. The process started by the World Coucil of Churches and the
World Alliance of Reformed Churches must be encouraged, continued and broadened.
20. We commit ourselves to establishing an effective follow-up process to this consultation
in the region of Central and Eastern Europe.
Neoliberalism and the Gospel - Or: "Christian Businessman", an oxymoron Khanya (Orthodox
Christians from South Africa)
Jesus The Market is Lord
And Elijah
came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be
God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word (I
Kings 18:21).
It seems to me that for many Christians the Gospel of Neoliberalism has replaced
the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I've known that for a long time, and have blogged about it before ( here , and
here , and
here
).
But today I was reminded of it again when several people brought various articles on it to my
attention:
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is
a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology
it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance
anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on
external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has
aptly described as the "infantilisation of the workers".
Today the dominant narrative is that of market fundamentalism, widely known in Europe as
neoliberalism. The story it tells is that the market can resolve almost all social, economic
and political problems. The less the state regulates and taxes us, the better off we will be.
Public services should be privatised, public spending should be cut, and business should be
freed from social control. In countries such as the UK and the US, this story has shaped our
norms and values for around 35 years: since Thatcher and Reagan came to power. It is rapidly
colonising the rest of the world.
Neoliberalism draws on the ancient Greek idea that our ethics are innate (and governed by a
state of nature it calls the market) and on the Christian idea that humankind is inherently
selfish and acquisitive. Rather than seeking to suppress these characteristics, neoliberalism
celebrates them: it claims that unrestricted competition, driven by self-interest, leads to
innovation and economic growth, enhancing the welfare of all.
When a Christian script was running in many people's minds (see Counterscript to know what
that refers to) Greed was regarded as one of the Seven Deadly Sins, but in the Gospel according
to Neoliberalism, it is the supreme virtue.
And
for many Christians, the Neoliberal script has started to drown out the Christian one, and so
raises the question of Elijah: How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God,
follow him: but if Baal, then follow him .
"Baal" is a word that means lord or master, and the deity referred to was Melqart, the god of
the Phoenician city of Tyre. Melqart was a god of rain and fertility, and hence of material
prosperity, and was invoked by Phoenician traders for protection of their commercial
enterprises. In other words, the cult of Baal was a prosperity cult, which had lured the people
of Israel, and was actively promoted by their Phoenician queen Jezebel, the wife of King Ahab.
The people of Israel had the prosperity script playing in their minds.
In our day too, many Christians have the prosperity script playing in their minds.
The post immediately preceding this one, on
Neopentecostal churches and their celebrity pastors [& here ]
, points to a phenomenon that Christian missiologists like to refer to as inculturation or
contextualisation, which, in a good sense, means making the Christian gospel understandable to
people living in a particular culture or context. But in the prosperity gospel preached by some
Neopentecostals, the Christian gospel has been swamped by the values of Neoliberalism. One
could say that "prosperity theology" is the contextualisation of the Christian gospel in a
society dominated by Neoliberal values, but to such an extent that the result is
syncretism.
But while the Neopentecostals sometimes do this explicitly, many other Christian groups do it
implicitly, and we need to ask ourselves where our values really come from -- from the gospel
of Jesus Christ, or from the gospel of the Market. Jesus Christ is the love of God incarnate,
but the Market, or Melqart, or Mammon, is the love of money incarnate.
When the world urges us to celebrate the virtues of Greed, whether subtly or blatantly, do we
resist it? Are we even aware of what is happening? Or do we simply allow that script to play in
our heads, telling us "You deserve it"?
Last week a couple of journalists were asking me why Neopentecostal churches that preach a
properity gospel, like T.B. Joshua's Synagogue Church of all Nations, are growing in
popularity, and one answer is that given by George Monbiot in the article quoted above -- that
the values of Neoliberalism, promoted by Reagan and Thatcher, are now colonising the whole
world.
Blessed are the sarcastic, for they shall succeed in business
I have sometimes suspected that the phrase "Christian Businessman" was an oxymoron, a
contradiction in terms, and that suspicion was reinforced by an article I have just read on the
Web. Harvard
Study Shows that Sarcasm is Actually Good for You :
Data from a recent study entitled, The Highest Form of Intelligence: Sarcasm Increases
Creativity for Both Expressers and Recipients, suggests that the delivery and deciphering of
sarcasm offers psychological benefits that have been largely underappreciated and long
overlooked.
The article tells us that the research was sponsored by Harvard Business School,
Columbia Business School and INSEAD ("The Business School for the World").
For as long as I can remember, I have been aware of the saying "Sarcasm is the lowest form of
wit."
The article I just cited tells us that people who believe that are stupid and uncreative.
So what is sarcasm, and why is it something that Christians should avoid if possible?
sarcasm n. Bitter or wounding remark, taunt, esp. one ironically worded [1]
The English word
sarcasm is derived from the Greek sarkasmos , which suggests the image of a
predator devouring its prey. So if, as the article, suggests the people most likely to succeed
in business are those who habitually go around making nasty remarks about others, and the most
effective bosses are those who habitually tear strips off their underlings, the term
"unscrupulous businessman" is a pleonastic redundancy.
Well what's new? I think most of us knew that.
I think we all knew that "business ethics" was a contradiction in terms. I recall seeing a
cartoon in Mad magazine that had some tongue-in-cheek suggestions for
commemorative postage stamps (remember them?), and one showed two people hugging each other,
each with knife in hand, stabbing the other in the back. That was to commemorate 100 years of
business ethics.
What's new in this article is a kind of psychological proof that nastiness works, that
being sarcastic gives you the edge in business. So sarcasm is a virtue to be inculcated and
cultivated. Yet it is the very opposite of ubuntu and Christian values.
Nearly every Sunday in Orthodox Churches we sing the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12).
Why so often?
Perhaps because of the frequency with which we are bombarded with propaganda to do the
opposite. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy , but being sarcastic is the
very opposite of being merciful. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth . Wrong, say the business
gurus. Blessed are the pushy.
It is perhaps easier to find Christian values among the scruffy beatniks and drop-outs from
society than among the business leaders.
As one beat generation writer said to the square who offered him an advertising job: 'I'll
scrub your floors and carry out your slops to make a living, but I will not lie for you, pimp
for you, stool for you or rat for you.'[2]
It is the worshippers of the bitch-goddess Success who hold out sarcasm as a
virtue and a behavioural ideal.
______________
Notes
[1] Concise Oxford Dictionary , Fifth Edition.
[2] Lipton, Lawrence. 1959. The holy barbarians . New York: Messner.
"... In an increasingly fragmented world, the Orthodox churches acknowledge and defend the dignity of every human being and cultivate human solidarity. In addressing violence in the marketplace, even if people accept in their hearts the virtues of justice and peace, the market operates with its own autonomous logic and economic practices. It is guided by the belief that there can be a 'total free market' in which unregulated competing economic relationships of individuals in pursuit of their economic gains can lead to optimum good. It advocates that free markets without government 'interference' would be the most efficient and socially optimal allocation of resources. ..."
"... Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank Chief Economist (1997-2000) and Nobel Laureate in Economics notes that economic globalization in its current form risks exacerbating poverty and increasing violence if not checked, because it is impossible to separate economic issues from social and political issues. ..."
"... Orthodoxy believes that all political and economic theories and practices are subject to criticism and modification aimed to overcoming those aspects of them that generate violence and injustice. ..."
"... The logic of the market must not only seek the maximization of profits favoring and serving only those who have economic capital and power. Economic practices must ensure just and sustainable development for all people. We cannot talk about a really free economy without entering into particular judgments about what kinds of exchange are conducive to the flourishing of life and what kinds are not. ..."
The peacemaking vocation of the church is a dynamic process of a never-ending personal and
communal transformation that reflects the human and fallible struggle to participate in God's
Trinitarian life. St. Nicholas Cabasilas epigrammatically summarizes the Orthodox view on
peacemaking: "Christians, as disciples of Christ, who made all things for peace, are to be
'craftsmen of peace.' They are called a peaceable race since 'nothing is more characteristic of
a Christian than to be a worker for peace." In being "craftsmen of peace" the Orthodox churches
unite themselves in prayer, vision, and action with all those Christians who pray that God's
Kingdom will come on earth as it is in heaven. The aspiration to live in peace and justice
unite Christians with people of living faiths and ideologies in a shared vision, hope, and
actions for less violence, injustice, and oppression. An effective intervention in situations
of conflict, injustice and oppression requires the churches not to ignore what is possible to
learn from advances in political sciences and economics as well as from successful economic and
political policies and practices that aim to transform conflicts into life opportunities.
In addressing the root causes of injustice and violence in the marketplace, the Orthodox
Churches recognize the autonomy of the inherent rationality of the market and leave the
development of economic theories and policies to those who understand its dynamics better. The
Churches, however, critique economic theories and practices based on their performance and
their effects upon the people. Their criticism contributes towards a revisionary logic of the
market that favors economic practices that generate greater opportunities for a more equitable
and just distribution of power and resources.
Today, one-and-a-half billion people live in areas affected by instability, conflict or
large-scale, organized criminal violence. The causes of conflict arise from economic, political
and security dynamics. Political exclusion and inequality affecting regional, religious, or
ethnic groups are associated with higher risks of civil war, while inequality between richer
and poorer households is closely associated with higher risks of violence. The disparity
between the rich and poor between and within nations is increasing. Unemployment is on the
rise, pushing more and more people into poverty, malnutrition, poor health, depression,
violence, insecurity, fear, and desperation. There are nearly one billion undernourished people
on our planet and this number is increasing by 68 people every minute; that is more than one
every second. The human cost of violence cannot be ignored by anyone who considers all human
beings to be icons of God.
The economic and monetary crisis that leads to an increased disparity between rich and poor
is understood mostly by the Orthodox Churches to be primarily a 'spiritual' and/or cultural
crisis. It is attributed to unrestrained individualism that leads to an excessive desire for
wealth and to consumerism. Individualism and consumerism have disconnected people from loving
God and their neighbor, thus preventing them from reflecting in their lives God's love for all
creation.
St. John Chrysostom, a notable preacher of the undivided Church, stated that not to be an
advocate of the poor would be "the worst inhumanity." [1] Being
the advocate of the poor leads him to refute point by point all the arguments by which the
affluent justified the marginalization of the poor and their indifference towards them. Christ
in a privileged manner is identified with the poor. The poor are not the spectacle of human
misery and suffering that evokes compassion or disgust, but they are the icons of Christ, the
presence of Christ in the broken world. This is their dignity! If you refuse to give bread to
the poor, you ignore Christ who desires to be fed: "You eat in excess; Christ eats not even
what he needs At the moment, you have taken possession of the resources that belong to Christ
and you consume them aimlessly." [2] The
poor for St. John Chrysostom are the liturgical images of the most holy elements in all of
Christian worship: the altar and the body of Christ. [3]
The Orthodox Churches advocate a culture of compassion in which people share their material
resources with those in need. Charity and compassion are not virtues to be practiced just by
those who have the material resources and means. They are virtues that promote the communal
love that Christians should have for all human beings. Every human being, regardless of whether
he or she is rich or poor must be charitable and compassionate to those lacking the basic
material resources for sustenance. [4] St.
Basil exhorts the poor to share even the minimal goods that they may have. [5]
Almsgiving leads people to God and grants to all the necessary resources for sustenance and
development of their human potential. However, a voluntary sharing of resources in the present
world is not enough. Building a culture of peace demands global and local institutional changes
and new economic practices that address at more fundamental level the root causes of poverty.
It calls for a fusion of the Christian culture of compassion with the knowledge that we have
acquired through experience and the advances of social science about the structural sources of
poverty and its multifaceted aspects that urgently need to be addressed through reflective
concerted actions.
In an increasingly fragmented world, the Orthodox churches acknowledge and defend the
dignity of every human being and cultivate human solidarity. In addressing violence in the
marketplace, even if people accept in their hearts the virtues of justice and peace, the market
operates with its own autonomous logic and economic practices. It is guided by the belief that
there can be a 'total free market' in which unregulated competing economic relationships of
individuals in pursuit of their economic gains can lead to optimum good. It advocates that free
markets without government 'interference' would be the most efficient and socially optimal
allocation of resources.
Many economists and institutions of global development agencies
embrace economic globalization as indisputable reality and suggest that there is no alternative
to this. They assume that Neoliberalism contributes to the prosperity and the equitable
development of all nations. Unfortunately though, its economic practices have not been designed
to meet the immediate needs of the world's poor people. Global inequalities between nations and
within nations are widening. Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank Chief Economist (1997-2000) and
Nobel Laureate in Economics notes that economic globalization in its current form risks
exacerbating poverty and increasing violence if not checked, because it is impossible to
separate economic issues from social and political issues.
The Orthodox Churches are not in a position to suggest concrete alternatives to economic
globalization, nor do they intend to endorse or reject complex economic policies and practices
that regulate the global economy. Yet, based on the eschatological orientation of the Christian
gospel, Orthodoxy believes that all political and economic theories and practices are subject
to criticism and modification aimed to overcoming those aspects of them that generate violence
and injustice.
The logic of the market must not only seek the maximization of profits favoring
and serving only those who have economic capital and power. Economic practices must ensure just
and sustainable development for all people. We cannot talk about a really free economy without
entering into particular judgments about what kinds of exchange are conducive to the
flourishing of life and what kinds are not.
The Churches are led by their faith to take an
active role in fostering economic practices that reflect God's peace and justice. These
economic practices integrate in their logic those elements of social life that promote a
culture of compassion that unites all human beings in peace and justice. Indispensable aspects
of this culture are: respect for the dignity and the rights of all human beings; equitable
socio-economic relationships; broad participation in economic and political decision-making;
and just sharing of resources and power.
Once, we put human faces to all those millions of people who suffer the consequences of an
inequitable distribution of power and resources, it becomes evident that it is an indispensable
aspect of the church's mission to the world to be involved through prayers and thoughtful
actions in noble efforts to eradicate poverty and injustice.
You are not alone in asking the question: How is it possible that we can be so antagonistic
towards conservative traditional Christianity and yet so accepting of Islam?
I think we have to understand that there has been a revolution in the US and the West in
general. An ideological revolution for neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is dedicated to scientific rationalism, the neoliberal conception of life:
science, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, that's it. Everything else is the matter of
your own personal opinion.
When that began to make its way into our culture and policy, in the 1960's in particular, it
gave rights to something called "emancipatory politics". The emancipation has to be freedom or
liberation.
Emancipatory politics basically says that traditions are bad and that customs discriminate
people. Emancipation dictates that If a person want to be Islamic, he can be Islamic, if he
wants to be homosexual, he can be homosexual, if he wants to change gender, he can change it.
And any tradition that stands against that has to be pushed aside because it is considered to
be discriminatory.
Over the last several decades we've seen a redefinition of the American Public Square. The
American Public Square used to be very Christian. It was guided by primarily Anglo-Protestant
traditional norms. Now it is being governed much more by these emancipatory-politics norms.
Therefore, if you are considered to be a part of the group that was not allowed into the Public
Square because of Christianity, now you are going to get special treatment. They are going to
make laws for you and, as a part of those laws, they have to cast out the Christianity that was
impeding you from coming into the Public Square.
Traditional morality and customs are now considered as evil and discriminatory.
Neoliberalism is actually much more accommodating to Islam than to Christianity. Why? Because
Islam was considered to be discriminated as well as feminists, LGBT, African-Americans, and
other national minorities. Any group that was once pushed out from public participation will
now be allowed in.
Neoliberalism basically makes culture a personal choice. You are free to choose whatever
culture you want. Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want to do and no one can stand in
your way. But that doesn't work if you are a Christian.
Remember, neoliberalism says science is the only way we can know. So, if science is the only
way we can know, what is culture?
In neoliberal ideology, culture is something that humanity added to the world. Culture
doesn't reflect any reality out there. There is no purpose. There is no God. It's just biology,
chemistry, physics, what they call "natural laws".
So, in that way, culture is how we impose meanings and purposes on a meaningless and
purposeless world. Who am I to tell you that your way of imposing meanings is bad and the way
how I impose it is good? The problem is culture itself. One cannot think about biology,
chemistry, physics without culture. Those things are culture. So culture is inescapable.
But what are neoliberals trying to do? They are trying to impose a multicultural culture.
That's the problem. A multicultural culture is impossible, It's a contradiction. On one side,
they talk about women`s rights and on the other side they support radical islamists who want
legalization of Sharia law in the US. It's just insane! There is no way of making sense of it.
And that's why I think they don't have any future.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 2005 book, "Like cancer in the human body, liberalism
in the body of the church begins undetected and unrecognized. By the time Christians recognize
the cancer of liberalism and are stirred to action, often it is too late to stop its deadly
progress. The damage has been done, and a spiritual crisis is upon the church. The Orthodox
Presbyterian Church [OPC] is now in such a spiritual crisis, and the crisis has spread well
beyond it. The crisis centers on the conflict between authentic Biblical Christianity and an
Antichristian counterfeit. The church needs to understand the nature of this crisis, how it
came about, its deadly effects, and what Scripture says must be done. That is the purpose of
this book." (Pg. 11-12) He adds, "we shall see how present-day neo-liberalism strikingly
parallels the old liberalism, but with contemporary points of emphasis and new subtleties we
shall examine neo-liberalism's corrupting influence on the OPC and other denominations." (Pg.
15-16) Significantly, he adds, "this book is a call to recognize the dangers of remaining in
the OPC, and to acknowledge that the time has come to separate from it." (Pg. 28)
He is strongly critical of Norman Shepherd [e.g., The
Call of Grace ]: "Norman Shepherd and those who follow his errors substitute the waters of
baptism for the blood of Christ. They teach, in effect, that God's covenant is a covenant in
water, not blood." (Pg. 53) He adds, "In God's economy, faith and works are mutually exclusive
in justification; mingling the two is impossible but Shepherd says that the impossible is not
only possible, but necessary. He redefines faith to be 'faith-plus.' He erects a false doctrine
of justification that un-Scripturally packs all sorts of works into the 'saving faith' which he
equates with 'justifying faith.'" (Pg. 55)
He asserts, "neo-liberals pretend to be what they are not, and profess to believe what they
do not Neo-liberals profess salvation by faith in Christ alone, but they teach salvation by
Christ plus man's faithfulness. Neo-liberals profess to believe in the authority of Scripture,
but they teach the primacy of human scholarship Neo-liberals profess to preach the
all-sufficiency of His obedience for the salvation of souls. Neo-liberals profess to believe in
full assurance of salvation, but they teach that the believer can never be assured." (Pg.
65-66)
He argues, "In the long run, it is not simply a matter of the OPC tolerating the preaching
of two gospels. The true Gospel is being displaced. Satan is quite content to fight a war of
attrition. If the false gospel continues to be propagated at the seminary level as the one that
is 'truly Reformed,' it will take only a generation for the preaching of the true Gospel to
become rare or even die out entirely in the denomination. That is exactly what has happened in
other denominations." (Pg. 125) He charges, "The OPC has had thirty years to purge itself of
these errors, and has repeatedly refused to do so. Instead of removing the cancer it has
stimulated its growth. In 2004 it showed once again that it has no stomach for the hard choices
it needs to make." (Pg. 237) He adds, "it is not surprising that Norman Shepherd's heresies,
which were allowed to take root over thirty years ago, have spread like a cancer in the years
since. It is not surprising that Shepherd and his followers continue to be welcome in many
parts of the OPC. It is not surprising that Richard Gaffin's teachings have become the dominant
position at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, and have flowed from there into the churches
of the OPC and other denominations." (Pg. 284)
He asks, "how does a neo-liberal minority dominate the OPC today?... liberals rely on the
cooperation, or at least inaction, of the doctrinally indifferent . Their watchword is
tolerance. They see controversy as one of the greatest evils, and they see tolerance of varying
views under one big confessional tent as the way to avoid controversy Doctrinal disputes are an
airing of dirty laundry that must be avoided Intolerance of error becomes the only intolerable
thing." (Pg. 313-314)
He recalls the separation of his own home congregation from the OPC: "before deciding to
recommend separation from the OPC, the session authorized a Sunday evening study series on the
doctrinal issues at stake The study shifted its focus to the errors commonly
taught---Shepherdism, Federal Vision theology, and the New Perspective on Paul The congregation
subsequently separated from the OPC by voting on a resolution of separation It also made it
clear that the congregation was separating from the authority of a body that has abandoned the
marks of a true church of Jesus Christ, rather than withdrawing under the authority of that
body as if it still possessed the Biblical qualities to exercise spiritual authority." (Pg.
339-340) He concludes, "this book has been a call to recognize the new dangers of remaining in
the OPC, and to acknowledge that the time has come to separate from it. We urge you to be
obedient to that Biblical imperative, no matter what the cost." (Pg. 365)
This book will be of interest to those concerned with the Federal Vision and Norman Shepherd
controversies, as well as debates within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and other
conservative Reformed denominations.
"... Whereas previously many conservatives focused on disputing the legal legitimacy of progressive policies, some conservatives have switched to opposing these policies under the banner of religious freedom. ..."
In Bannon's telling, the greatest mistake the baby
boomers made was to reject the traditional "Judeo-Christian" values of their parents. He considers this a historical crime,
because in his telling it was Judeo-Christian values that enabled Western Europe and the United States to defeat European
fascism, and, subsequently, to create an "
enlightened
capitalism
" that made America great for decades after World War II.
The
enormous
amount
of
media
attention
he
has received and his various
interviews
,
talks
,
and
documentaries
strongly
suggest that he believes the world is on the verge of disaster -- and that without Judeo-Christianity, the American culture war
cannot be won, enlightened capitalism cannot function, and "
Islamic
fascism
" cannot be defeated.
This is where Bannon invokes the "Russian
traditionalism" of Vladimir Putin, and it's important to recognize why he does so. In his 2014 Vatican talk, Bannon made it
clear
that
Putin is "playing very strongly to U.S. social conservatives about his message about more traditional values." As a recent
Atlantic
essay
convincingly argues, upon his return to office in 2012, Putin realized that "large patches of the West despised feminism and
the gay-rights movement." Seizing the opportunity, he transformed himself into the "New World Leader of Conservatism" whose
traditionalism would offer an alternative to the libertine West that had long shunned him.
... ... ...
...Bannon also highlights differences between
Judeo-Christian traditionalism and the thinking of Alexander Dugin, who
he
(hyperbolically) credits
as being the intellectual mastermind of the traditionalist movement in Russia. In contrast to
mainline American social conservatives, Dugin
sees
the
anti-globalism and anti-Americanism of certain expressions of Islam as having much in common with his own distinctive brand of
traditionalism. In fact, Dugin
views
conservative
American evangelicalism as an aberration from historical Christianity, and a cipher for neoliberal capitalism.
In contrast to Bannon's realpolitik, Sergei Lavrov, the
Russian minister of foreign affairs, has called for a greater long-term cooperation with the West -- for a "partnership of
civilizations" to combat modern geopolitical problems, especially ISIS.
In
his words
, "We believe that universal human solidarity must have a moral basis resting on traditional values which are
essentially common for all of the world's leading religions. I would like to draw your attention to the joint statement made
by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Pope Francis, in which they reiterated their support for the family as a
natural center of life for individuals and society." The same values that motivate Russia's foreign policy (especially its
role in the Middle East) are, to Lavrov, the bedrock of the Christian civilization represented by the Patriarch and the pope.
"... The second reason is now more pertinent than when it was first given. The capitalist system, by its very nature, places the preponderance of wealth in the hands of a small minority. ..."
"... As G.K. Chesterton rightly stated, the problem with capitalism is that it produces too few capitalists! ..."
"... The above were only some of the reasons why the Distributists, who formed the Distributist League in 1926, thought that the capitalist economy would eventually collapse. These were not, however, the only problems which they found with the system. ..."
"... The idea that if every man simply seeks after his own economic interest, all will be provided for and prosper, was almost universally rejected during these decades. We see strong reactions to economic liberalism in Russian Communism, German National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Austrian, Portuguese, and Spanish Corporatism, British Fabian Socialism, along with the American "New Deal" leftism. Thus, in the 1930s and 1940s, most of the world was ordered by ideologies which explicitly rejected the premises of economic liberalism. We must, also, not forget the international economic crash of the late 20s and early 30s, which produced economic depression, totalitarian regimes, and, finally, world war. ..."
In truly "prophetic" utterances, the analysis of present circumstances, along with a
consideration of the laws written into human nature which manifest themselves in history, can
yield a prediction concerning the general outline of things to come. This judgment of the
well-informed and perceptive mind, is somewhat undermined by only one factor. The universe and
the "universe" of human society in which the inherent laws written into human nature by its
Creator reveal themselves in historical events, is also a universe which contains free
creatures who are undetermined as regards the means they can employ to achieve their
specifically human end. Human freedom inserts a variable in the material necessity of the
universe.
This contingency and variability has its ultimate source in the spirituality of the
human soul. It is precisely on account of his materialistic rejection of the human soul, that
Karl Marx, for instance, could make such ridiculously precise predictions as to the "necessary"
movement of economic, political, and social history. This does not mean, however, that there is
not an inherent natural law which determine which human endeavors will "work" and which will
lead to catastrophe.
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, there were a group of scholars,
theologians, philosopher, social critics, and poets, who predicted the inevitable demise of the
capitalist economic system which was just developing in Continental Europe, but had been
operative for 100 years in England. When you read their works, especially the British authors
of the early 20th century, here we include Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Arthur Penty,
one is struck by the fact that their analyzes are more valid today than they were 70 or 80
years ago, their predictions more likely to be imminently fulfilled.
What they predicted was
nothing less than the collapse of the capitalist system. In the case of Belloc, in his book The
Servile State, it was predicted that capitalism would soon transform itself into an economic
and social system which resembled the slave economies of the pre-Christian and early Christian
eras. Why did they predict such a collapse or inevitable transformation? In their writings,
many reasons are given, however, we can narrow them down to three. The first, they referred to
as the "capitalist paradox." The paradox is a consequence of capitalism being an economic
system which, in the long run, "prevents people from obtaining the wealth produced and prevents
the owner of the wealth from finding a market." Since the capitalist strives both for ever
greater levels of production and lower wages, eventually "the laborer who actually produces
say, boots cannot afford to buy a sufficient amount of the boots which he himself has made."
This leads to the "absurd position of men making more goods than they need, and yet having less
of those goods available for themselves than they need."1
The second reason is now more pertinent than when it was first given. The capitalist system,
by its very nature, places the preponderance of wealth in the hands of a small minority. This
monopoly on the money supply by banking and financial concerns, becomes more absolute as the
capital-needing consumer must go to the banks to borrow money. Usury, now called "interest,"
insures that those who first possesses the money for loan, will end up with a greater portion
of the money supply than they possessed before the loan was issued. As wages stagnate and
interest payments become increasingly impossible to make, massive numbers of defaults will
inevitably produce a crisis for the entire financial system.2
When entire nations default on
loans, there will be a crisis throughout the entire international financial system. Demise is,
therefore, built into the very structure of the capitalistic system in which capital (i.e., all
kinds of wealth whatsoever which man uses with the object of producing further wealth, and
without which the further wealth could not be produced. It is a reserve without which the
process of production is impossible)3 is primarily in the hands of the few.
As G.K. Chesterton
rightly stated, the problem with capitalism is that it produces too few capitalists! The third
fact concerning capitalism which the Distributists thought would inevitably bring down the
system or lead to its fundamental transformation, was the general instability and personal
insecurity which marks a full-blown capitalist economy. What accounts for this general feeling
of insecurity and instability, which characterizes both the individual "wage-earner" and the
society living under capitalism, is the always present fear of unemployment and, hence, of
destitution and the fact that a laborer's real wages leave him with only enough money to cover
the expenses of the day. Saving, so as to provide an economic hedge against the misfortune of
unemployment or personal crisis, becomes almost impossible.4
The above were only some of the reasons why the Distributists, who formed the Distributist
League in 1926, thought that the capitalist economy would eventually collapse. These were not,
however, the only problems which they found with the system.
The social consequences of the majority being unable to afford real property, the decline
and, eventual, disappearance of the trade guilds and vocational corporations, the "necessity"
of wives and mothers entering the "work force," the end of small-scale family -owned businesses
and farms, the decline of the apprentice system were all indictments of capitalism in the mind
of those who sought to chart out a "third way" between capitalism, which is simply liberalism
in the economic sphere, and socialism.
There is little doubt that the problems with capitalism which were cited by the
Distributists have only grown in their proportion in our own time. The concentration of wealth,
exemplified by the recent merger of Citicorp and Travelers which produced the largest banking
institution in the United States with assets of $700 billion, simply boggles the mind. The
institution of usury, always an necessary adjunct of economic liberalism, has caused in recent
years more bankruptcies and personal debt than ever before in history. Nations, such as
Indonesia, are tottering on the brink of social, economic, and political chaos because of their
inability to pay the interest on their hundreds of billions of dollars in bank debt. If such a
nation should go into default, it could threaten to throw a whole variety of nations into
recession, depression, or worse.
It is not proper to say that the predictions of the imminent demise of capitalism were
totally without fulfillment. The 1920s, 30s, and 40s witnessed reaction after reaction to the
radical individualism which is the fundamental idea of liberal capitalism. Truly, the market is
the institutionalization of individualism and non-responsibility. Neither buyer nor seller is
responsible for anything but himself.5
The idea that if every man simply seeks after his own
economic interest, all will be provided for and prosper, was almost universally rejected during
these decades. We see strong reactions to economic liberalism in Russian Communism, German
National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Austrian, Portuguese, and Spanish Corporatism, British
Fabian Socialism, along with the American "New Deal" leftism. Thus, in the 1930s and 1940s,
most of the world was ordered by ideologies which explicitly rejected the premises of economic
liberalism. We must, also, not forget the international economic crash of the late 20s and
early 30s, which produced economic depression, totalitarian regimes, and, finally, world
war.
There is one fact which separates our day from the days of the 30s and 40s, however. The
concentration of wealth and capital, the inadequacy of a man's pay to provide the basics of
life and to provide for savings for the future, the lack of real property generously and
broadly distributed, is masked by the reality of easy credit. Easy credit, which is not
ultimately "easy" at all on the borrower, anesthetizes the populace to the grim facts of
capitalist monopoly. Since we seem to be able to get all the things that we want, the reality
of real money being increasingly unavailable to the average man is lost in the delusionary
state of the consumerist utopia. Only when the "benefit" of usurious credit is cut off, do we
realize the full extent of the problem. The greatest problem with liberal capitalism, however,
is not the concentration of wealth or real property, the greatest "existential" problem created
by capitalism is the problem of the very meaning and reality of work. To work is essential to
what it means to be a human being. Next to the family, it is work and the relationships
established by work that are the true foundations of society.6 In modern capitalism, however,
it is productivity and profit which are the basic aims, not the providing of satisfying work.
Moreover, since "labor saving" devices are the proudest accomplishments of industrial
capitalism, labor itself is stamped with the mark of undesirability. But what is undesirable
cannot confer dignity.7
It is not merely that industrial capitalism has produced forms of work, both manual and
white-collared, which are "utterly uninteresting and meaningless. Mechanical, artificial,
divorced from nature, utilizing only the smallest part of man's potential capacities,
[sentencing] the great majority of workers to spending their working lives in a way which
contains no worthy challenge, no stimulus to self-perfection, no chance of development, no
element of Beauty, Truth, Goodness."8 Rather, capitalism has so fundamentally alienated man
from his own work, that he no longer considers it his own. It is those with the financial
monopoly who determine what forms of work are to exist and which are "valuable" (i.e., useful
for rendering profits to the owners of money).9 Since man spends most of his days working, his
entire existence becomes hollowed out, serving a purpose which is not of his own choosing nor
in accord with his final end.
In regard to the entire question of a "final end," if we are to consider capitalism from a
truly philosophical perspective, we must ask of it the most philosophical of questions, why?
What is the purpose for which all else is sacrificed, what is the purpose of continuous growth?
Is it growth for growth's sake? With capitalism, there is no "saturation point," no condition
in which the masters of the system say that the continuous growth of corporate profits and the
development of technological devices has ceased to serve the ultimate, or even the proximate,
ends of mankind. Perhaps, the most damning indictment of economic liberalism, indeed, of any
form of liberalism, is its inability to answer the question "why."
A) Corporatism: The Catholic Response
1) The History of the "Third Way"
To understand the history of the "Third Way," a name given to an economic system which is
neither Marxist nor Capitalist by French corporatist thinker Auguste Murat (1944), we must
consider the social, political, and economic realities which originally motivated its main
advocates. Originally, "Corporatism," later to be termed "Distributism" by its British
advocates Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, was a response on the part of German
traditionalists and Catholics to the inroads which the ideology of the French Revolution had
made into their country in the early and middle years of the 19th century. The institutions
which were being defended in Corporatist thought were the ancient "estates" or "guilds" which
had been the pillars of Christian Germany for centuries. These corporate bodies, grouping
together all the men of a particular occupation or social function, were an institutional
opposition to the revolutionary doctrines of individualism and human equality. One early
rightist thinker, Adam Muller, upheld the traditional idea of social stratification based upon
an organic hierarchy of estates or guilds (Berufstandische). Such a system was necessary on
account of the essential dissimilarity of men. Moreover, such a system would prevent the
"atomization" of society so much desired by the revolutionaries who wished to remake in a new
form that which had been pulverized by liberalism.10
2) Von Ketteler and the Guild System
It was, however, a German nobleman and prelate, Wilhelm Emmanuel, Baron von Ketteler
(1811-1877), Bishop of Mainz, who directed Corporatism into new avenues and forced it to
address new concerns. The realities which Bishop von Ketteler knew the Catholic mind had to
address was the new reality of industrialism and economic liberalism. As Pope Leo XIII himself
admitted on several occasions, it was the thought of Bishop von Ketteler which helped shape his
own encyclical letter on Catholic economic teaching Rerum Novarum (1891).11 The "new things"
His Holiness was addressing were capitalism and socialism. Both meet with his condemnation,
although capitalism is condemned with strong language as an abuse of property, a deprivation of
the many by the few, while socialism is dismissed outright as being contrary to man's inherent
right to own property.12
Von Ketteler, also, in his book Die Arbeiterfrage und das Christenthum (Christianity and the
Labor Problem), attacks the supremacy of capital and the reign of economic liberalism as the
two main roots of the evils of modern society. Both represented the growing ascendancy of
individualism and materialism, twin forces that were operating to "bring about the dissolution
of all that unites men organically, spiritually, intellectually, morally, and socially."
Economic liberalism was nothing but an application of materialism to society." The working
class are to be reduced to atoms and then mechanically reassembled. This is the fundamental
generative principle of modern political economy."13 What Ketteler sought to remedy was "This
pulverization method, this chemical solution of humanity into individuals, into grains of dust
equal in value, into particles which a puff of wind may scatter in all directions."14 Bishop
von Ketteler's solution to this problem of the pulverization of the work force and the ensuing
injustice which this would inevitably breed, was to propose an idea which was the central
concept of medieval and post-medieval economic life, the guild system. When responding to a
letter from a group of Catholic workers who had submitted the question "Can a Catholic
Workingman be a member of the Socialist Worker's Party?," Bishop von Ketteler outlined the
basic structure of these vocational guilds or Berufstandische: First, "The desired
organizations must be of natural growth; that is, they must grow out of the nature of things,
out of the character of the people and its faith, as did the guilds of the Middle Ages."
Second, "They must have an economic purpose and must not be subservient to the intrigues and
idle dreams of politicians nor to the fanaticism of the enemies of religion." Third, "They must
have a moral basis, that is, a consciousness of corporative honor, corporative responsibility,
etc. Fourth, "They must include all the individuals of the same vocational estates." Fifth,
"Self-government and control must be combined in due proportion."
The guilds which von Ketteler was advocating were to be true social corporations, true
vocational "bodies" which were to have a primarily economic end, and yet, be animated by the
"soul" of a common faith. These "bodies," just like all organic entities, would be made up of
distinct parts all exercising a unique role in their particular trade. In the days of corporate
giants and trade unions, it is, perhaps, impossible to imagine vocational organizations which
include both owners and workers, along with technicians of all types. These organizations would
regulate all aspects of their particular trade, including wages, prices for products, quality
control, along with certifying that all apprentices has the requisite skills to adequately
perform the guild's particular art.
3) The Guild System and Social Solidarity
Following the intellectual path charted by von Ketteler, another German Catholic, Franz
Hitze (1851-1921), wrote of the social, psychological, and, even, spiritual purposes which
would be served by the vocational corporations or guilds. Claiming that "economic freedom" was
only a myth serving to disguise the fact that capital actually ordered things completely with a
single eye to its own advantage, Hitze saw no alternative to the economic and social control
traditionally exercised by the guilds. It would be such organizations which overcame the
antagonism between capital and labor which fed Marxist propaganda. In his book Kapital und
Arbeit und die Reorganisation der Gesellschaft (Capital and Labor and the Reorganization of
Society), Hitze states that such organizations would also end the fierce competition which is
totally inconsistent with the idea of the Common Good and social solidarity. This idea that an
economy can be ordered on the basis of "mutuality" and the identification of the interests of
employer and employee, is difficult for those who assume that an economic system must be
powered by competition and self-interest. It must be remembered, however, that such was the
economic system of Christendom until the guilds were destroyed by the advent of the French
Revolution.
What these traditional vocational groups were able to foster during the ages in which they
ordered the life of the craftsman, was a decentralization both of property and of economic
power. They, also, enabled the average craftsman to have a real say in the workings of his
trade. Such economic "federalism" or decentralization prevented the development of financial
monopolies. As Hilaire Belloc states, "Above all, most jealously did the guild safeguard the
division of property, so that there should be formed within its ranks no proletariat upon the
one side, and no monopolizing capitalist upon the other."15
B) Chesterbelloc and Distributism
It was in the early years of this century, that Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, joined
by a former Socialist Arthur Penty, inspired by Rerum Novarum, attempted to articulate an
economic system which stood on a totally different set of principles than did the "new things"
of capitalism and socialism. The name they gave to this system, Distributism, awkward as they
themselves realized, expressed not the socialist idea of the confiscation of all private
property, but rather, the wide-spread distribution of land, real-property, the means of
production, and of financial capital, amongst the greater part of the families of a nation.
Such a concept, along with their encouragement of the guild system, of a return to the agrarian
life, and of their condemnation of the taking of interest on non-productive loans, formed the
core of this "new" economic model.
In his book Economics for Helen, Belloc identifies the nature of the Distributist State by
distinguishing this type of state and social and economic system from that of the Servile State
and the Capitalist State. The Servile State is the one of classical antiquity, in which vast
masses of the people work as slaves for the small class of owners. In this way, the economic
state of antiquity is very similar to the economic system of our own time, insofar as a very
small minority possess real property, land, the means of production, and financial capital,
while the great mass of the population does not possess these goods to any significant degree.
How does Belloc distinguish the Servile State from that of the Capitalist State, in which he
counts the Britain of his own time? The difference is that, whereas the Servile State is based
on coercion to force the greater part of the population, which does not possess property, to
work for those who do, the Capitalist State employs "free" laborers who can choose to sign a
work contract with one employer or another. In the liberal Capitalist State, one is "free" to
choose to apply for work or accept work from one of the various owners of the means of
production. In return for this work, the laborer receives a wage which is a small portion of
the wealth that he produces.16
What distinguishes the Distributist State from the two States mentioned above, is that
instead of a small minority of men owning the means of production, there is a wide distribution
of property. In this regard, Belloc defines property as "the control of wealth by someone."17
Property must, then, be controlled by someone, since wealth which is not kept or used up by
someone would perish and cease to be wealth.
1) England's Journey for Distributism to Capitalism
It is Belloc's historical thesis, that it was not the industrialism of the late 18th and
early 19th centuries which brought about the rise of capitalism, but rather, England was a
capitalist state in the making long before the emergence of the railroad or the factory. The
Servile State, the state in which a small number of owners controlled the land and the men who
worked the land, was a mark of the Roman civilization which gradually transformed itself, under
the influence of the Catholic Church, into the feudal system in which the servus went from
being a "slave" who owned nothing, to being a "serf" who could retain [some] of what he
produced in the fields. The serf had the right to pass the land down to his own kin and he
could not be throw off his land. Thus, the personal security and economic and social stability
which characterized the Roman estate system, was carried over into medieval times.18
This historical movement, under the aegis of the Church, towards a man working on the land
which he himself owned, and working for his own benefit and for that of his family, came to an
end in England in the 16th century during the reign of King Henry VIII. Since the Distributist
State had grown up under the eye of Holy Mother Church, it should not be surprising that it
would end when She was attacked and surpressed. According to Belloc, it was King Henry's
confiscation of the monastery lands in England, and his action of parceling them out among his
wealthy supporters, which marked the beginning of the transformation of England from a nation
in which property, the land, and the means of production were widely distributed, to one in
which a small number of families control increasingly greater shares of the land. The coming of
protestantism marked the transformation of the average Englishman from independent yeoman to
tenant farmer. The concentration of wealth would occur, then, long before England would become
the industrial power of the world in the 19th century.19
2) Small is Beautiful
There can be no doubt as to the most general form of family ownership foreseen and advocated
by Belloc and Chesterton. For them, the most humane and stable economic system was one in which
a majority of families farmed land which they themselves owned, doing it with tools which were
also their own.20 Here he was following the lead of Pope Leo XIII, who in Rerum Novarum,
advocates a similar aim: "We have seen therefore that this great labor question cannot be
solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and
inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership and its policy should be to induce as
many as possible to obtain a share in the land, the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty
will be bridged... A further consequence will be the greater abundance of the fruits of the
earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them;
nay, and those that are dear to them. . . men would cling to the country of their birth, for no
one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a
decent and happy life."21
Being Englishmen, the idea that the land meant wealth was inevitably ingrained in their
conception of economics. Ownership of the land by the families who themselves worked the land
would also mean financial stability, no fear of unemployment, a family enterprise which could
engage, in some measure, all members, an ability to put aside food and supplies to create a
hedge against destitution, a way of providing not only for one's children but for one's
children's children, along with creating an economic structure which is not oriented towards
corporate profits but towards providing for familial subsistence and a local market. Belloc
speaks of this type of Distributist economy as the one most general throughout the history of
mankind, with the possible exception of the slave economy. Capitalism and Socialism are
certainly recent interlopers on the human economic scene.22
Next we must address the ways in which such a Distributist idea can be implemented on the
personal and community level. In this regard, our next article will focus on the concept of a
"parallel economy" formed by those who wish to begin to implement the economic teachings of
Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno, along with focusing on the agrarian idea both as Catholic
thought and human good sense.
"... An exclusive interview with Dr. Ovidiu Hurduzeu, Romanian economist and sociologist, and one of the main proponents of Distributism in Romania. Special for Katehon.com ..."
An exclusive interview with Dr. Ovidiu Hurduzeu, Romanian economist and sociologist, and
one of the main proponents of Distributism in Romania. Special for Katehon.com
Why distributism?
To understand the importance of distributism, we need to compare it to both communism and
capitalism, the two systems that distributism is opposed to. In a distributist society there is
wide and equitable distribution of property and ownership. In communism you have collective
ownership and collective redistribution of property. People do not have economic freedom; they
are wage-slaves to the state. In the so called "free, democratic and capitalist" society, the
capital, and most of the property, belong to a small class called 'capitalists', while the mass
of the citizens are obliged to work for the few capitalists in return for a wage. Distributism
does not separate ownership and work any longer. It seeks to establish an economic and social
order, where most people have real, debt-free productive property. (In capitalism, the
"property" of the common person is mortgaged or purchased on credit; it is merely a rented
good). In practical terms a distributist order is achieved through the widespread dissemination
of family-owned businesses, employee ownership, cooperatives, and any other arrangement
resulting in well-divided property.
What are the main problems that plague Romania and other Eastern European countries? How can
they be solved?
The main problem that has confronted Romania and other Eastern European countries is the
reckless adoption of the neoliberal economic model. In the aftermath of communism's collapse,
the collective ownership of land and the means of production (state assets) were transferred to
the private sector (local oligarchs and foreign individuals and companies). Such a process was
the main culprit behind the huge concentration of wealth, widespread poverty and the
destruction of the national economies. Today, Eastern Europe is made up of what distributists
call "servile states", with Romania being a case in point. Politically and economically, the
country is enslaved to the globalist power centers, while its citizens are constrained to work
under servile conditions in the rich EU countries, or are wage-slaves for transnational
corporations operating in Romania. There is no long-term solution unless the system of property
rights is completely reformed. Only the widespread ownership of property will make Romanians
sufficiently well off so that they can have a say in how they are governed.
Romania is a Christian-orthodox country while distributism is a catholic economic doctrine.
Do you see some contradictions here?
Distributism is more than an economic doctrine. It is a set of concrete economic practices
based on the Christian anthropology of the person. The main economic actors of liberalism are
homo oeconomicus and homo interlopus, while distributism can function only within a community
of persons. What I mean by person and personal has nothing to do with the atomistic
individualism of liberalism. It refers to the relational aspect of creation. Both Catholicism
and Orthodoxy envisage the human person in relation to God, to other human beings, and to the
rest of creation. The personalist aspects of distributism and its "small is beautiful" tenet
are what makes it very attractive to the orthodox world. It is not surprising that Solzhenitsyn
greatly admired the famous distributist thinker G.K. Chesterton. Solzhenitsyn conceived his own
version of distributism as a "democracy of small areas" (Rebuilding Russia) in the tradition of
Russian zemstvos. Catholic writers such as G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were very
influential in disseminating the distributist ideas of the West. And yet distributism could
never really challenge liberalism and its economic doctrines. In the light of history, one can
discern two main reasons for its failure in the Western countries. One reason is the
forgetfulness and abandonment of the Person and of the community of persons created in the
image and likeness of God; another reason is the loss of the agrarian tradition that
Distributism was based on. The Western world replaced the person with the monadic individual of
liberalism, while the agrarian Weltanschauung gave way to an addiction to technology and
unbridled commercialism.
Distributism had its moment of glory in the 1920's. What can you tell us about the "Green
Rising"?
The aftermath of World War I saw an agrarian-distributist revolution, known as "the Green
Rising", which swept across Europe from Ireland and Scandinavia through Germany to the Slav
world. G.K. Chesterton underscored its historical significance: "It is a huge historical hinge
and turning point, like the conversion of Constantine or the French Revolution...What has
happened in Europe since the war (World War I) has been a vast victory for the peasant, and
therefore a vast defeat for the communists and the capitalists." Chesterton does not exaggerate
at all. "To observers in the 1920's" - writes the conservative writer Allan C. Carlson in the
'Third Ways' – "the future of Eastern Europe seemed to lie with the peasant 'Green', not
the Bolshevik 'Red' ". The Green Rising saw agrarian parties, with their radical distributist
programs, come to power in Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Finland, and strongly
influenced the situation in the Baltic States and Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, the great
distributist movement of the 1920's was largely crushed by the mid 1930's, and is now mostly
forgotten.
What distributist principles of organizing an economy are most suitable to the orthodox
countries? Is a "Christian-orthodox economy" still possible?
A Christian-orthodox economy is not only possible; it is the only way that could lead to the
transformation of our societies for the better. When communism collapsed, the liberals injected
the virus of a plutocratic economy and rampant individualism into our societies. If communists
dispossessed the populace in the name of collective ownership and a communal monopoly, the
liberals created a dispossessed "lonely crowd" that was forced to work for subsistence wages in
the name of the "free market". Both communism and the "new capitalists" instituted master-slave
relations in the former Soviet bloc. That is unacceptable from a Christian point of view. As
Christians, we cannot accept the neoliberal tenet that "there is no such thing as society"
(Margaret Thatcher). Individualism and ruthless competition are utterly unchristian. A
Christian orthodox society is a cooperative one in which loving our neighbors is the norm, and
the common rules are enforced in a way that maximizes personal responsibility. Due to their
communal organization, there was simply no poverty among the first Christians; they had no fear
of becoming slaves in order to support themselves. Today, a distributist society should
challenge the neo-liberal economic model in the way the cooperative society of the first
Christians challenged the slave-based economic order of the Roman Empire. We are not talking
here about idealism, utopia or socialist solutions in the form of welfare and punitive
taxation. We do not want to repeat the cycle of disempowerment and dependency. We need to
provide the conditions for social justice through a widespread distribution of property, the
remoralization of the markets, and recapitalization of the poor.
Does Romania have an intellectual tradition of non-liberal economic thought? What value does
this heritage have for today's economists?
Indeed, Romania had a solid intellectual tradition of non-liberal economic thought. A
mention must be made to the agrarian economists Virgil Madgearu (one of the leaders of the
National Peasant Party), Mircea Vulcanescu (one of Romania's greatest thinkers ever, he died in
prison as a Christian martyr), and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, the founder of the ecological
economy. They belong to different economic schools and yet they share the same fondness for
agrarian and Christian values. Today's Romanian economists are too busy following orders from
the West to pay any attention to the great Romanian economists of the past.
How can the distributist principles be implemented in real economic policies? Are there any
political forces in Romania that want to bring the distributist ideas into reality?
The country needs a new "Green rising" to complete what the Romanian agrarians left
unfinished. "If the Peasants' Party is to be victorious in elections" - wrote Virgil Madgearu
– "the shape of things would be changed." The National Bank would no longer be the
economic fortress of the Liberal oligarchy. Trusts would no longer enslave and exploit the
state. Their selfish and venal leaders would no longer be enthroned in overseeing positions
over the country's destiny. Civil liberties, nowadays suffocated, and stolen civil rights would
be fully restored, and the constitutional-parliamentary regime would become a reality,
benefiting the development of popular masses as well as civilization."
Unfortunately, I do not see any real chance for Romania of adopting sweeping changes like
the ones envisaged by Madgearu in the 1920's. There are no political forces in today's Romania
strong enough to challenge the dominance of liberalism.
Do you see any relevance of the distributist model to Russian society in general, and the
Russian economy in particular?
I think that distributism is germane to Russian realities and not a foreign import like
communism and liberalism. And it is the only economic model that can vanquish the Liberals on
their own ground (the economy). Russia, like the Third Rome, should not forget the lessons of
Byzantine recovery. When confronted with a series of serious crises in the 7th century, the
Byzantine Empire adopted a brilliant distributist strategy. As a consequence, it went from near
disintegration to being the main power in Europe and the Near East. The pillar of this strategy
was the peasant-soldier who became a producer rather than consumer of the empire's wealth.
Fighting for their own lands and families, soldiers performed better. As staunch Christians,
the Byzantines survived by simplifying their social, political, and economic systems within the
constraints of less available resources. They moved from extensive space-based development to
simplified, local, intensive development. (That's the lesson the Soviet Union did not learn,
and failed as a result.) "In this sense, Byzantium" - writes Joseph A. Tainter – "may be
a model or prototype for our own future, in broad parameters but not in specific details."
Today's Global Empire is an integrated hyper-complex system that is very costly to human
society. It has reached the limits of its expansion and faces collapse because it tries to
solve its problems in the same outdated way: investing in more complexity and expansion. So far
its growth has been subsidized by the availability of cheap human and natural resources, as
well as a "world currency" that the Global Empire totally controls. A multipolar world and a
finite planet make investment in complexity no longer a problem-solving tool – the costs
exceed the benefits. If Russia could adopt distributism and follow the Byzantium-like
strategies of intensive development, the Third Rome can save herself and become a genuine
"prototype of our future".
The institutional church, in the afore-mentioned "Orthodox countries," basically functions
as a neoliberal corporation. If we think of bishops and patriarchs as "top managers" (CEOs),
and priests as lower-level administrators, in charge of specific, money-making divisions, and
the lay people as simple workers (or, worse, resources), the parallel is striking. The church
normally enjoys the monopoly status, and exploits it to a very high degree. There are many
direct and indirect benefits that the church (just as any major corporation in the neoliberal
world) enjoys: the state support, which ranges (depending on the country) from special,
tax-free status for its property and income, priests' salaries and pensions paid by the state,
to the privileged access to state officials, party leaders and the media, privileged treatment
in the (in)justice system, etc. In return, the church provides useful ideological narratives,
and the "moral support" to the dominant socio-political system.
When it comes to its internal functioning, the parallel with the neoliberal corporate world
is even more discernible. The selection of new top managers (bishops) is highly nontransparent,
subject to various types of corruption, and only occasionally and secondary based on
meritocracy and their (real) social contribution. In many (although, to be fair, not all)
dioceses, if you're a priest (lower-level administrator) that means that your primary duty is
to make money and send the assigned sum/percentage to the top management (bishop and/or
patriarch). The more money you produce/collect the better. If you're really successful (you
send a lot of money), and you make the senior management really happy, you will be rewarded by
certain privileges and the management will be ready to overlook many of your misconducts,
incompetence, lack of the very elementary Christian sense of compassion, etc. It normally does
not matter whether you're a good priest or not (in the old-fashioned sense, that is
someone who cares about the people, who is fully invested in liturgical services and parish
life in a self-sacrificing way, who aspires to live, as much as possible, according to the
Gospel, and so forth); following our neoliberal church, making a lot of money makes you a good
priest. (This, of course, does not mean that there are no many wonderful bishops and priests,
who exercise their pastoral service with the utmost care and love, to which the above described
system does not apply.)
If you are, on the other hand, a priest who believes in Christ, who tries to practice your
faith through the loving relationships with other people, if you, out of that faith and love,
use the church property in such a way that is beneficial for others and for the whole
community, but you do not produce "profits," you're potentially in trouble. If you, moreover,
dare to speak your mind, to tell the truth, to criticize the "management" for their
misconducts, for not living Christian lives, for not really practicing Orthodoxy and so on --
you're, more often than not, finished.
The neoliberal senior management does not tolerate disobedience, protests, different ways of
thinking. Neoliberalism is not there to promote freedom, critical thinking, creativity, general
well-being, or, for that matter, anything else that might be meaningful from a human
and humane point of view. It is there to affirm obedience, vertical distribution of
power, and, above all, profits, that contribute to the replication and expansion of power. This
neoliberal, corporate slavery is, of course, not advertised that way; it is normally advertised
as "competitiveness," "flexibility," "innovation," and so forth. In the church context, it is
advertised as "tradition," "centuries-old practices," "Christian life," "reverence," etc.
The alliance between big businesses, political ideologies and religion is not something new.
In the U.S. the alliance between the corporate sector and the religious (church) institutions
is a very well-known phenomenon. Not so much in the Orthodox world, which often believes that
it is immune to the various monstrosities coming from the "West." And many in the West
believe the same, except that they formulate it differently -- for them Orthodoxy appears as
fundamentally incompatible with the "Western values." It's a high time to reconsider and reject
this narrow ideological frame, which seriously distorts the image of (our neoliberal)
reality.
Davor Džalto is Associate Professor and Program Director for Art History and Religious
Studies at The American University of Rome President of the Institute for the Study of Culture
and Christianity.
Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives
on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in this essay
are solely the author's and do not represent the views of the editors or the Orthodox Christian
Studies Center.
"... Consolidation of mankind on the basis of the moral commandments of God is fully consistent with the Christian mission. This incarnation of globalization provides an opportunity for fraternal mutual assistance, free exchange of creative achievements and knowledge, respectful coexistence of different languages and cultures, the joint protection of nature - would be a reasonable and pious. ..."
"... If the essence of globalization is only to overcome the division between the people, the content of its economic processes had to be overcome inequalities, the prudent use of earthly riches, equitable international cooperation. ..."
"... In contrast to the immutability and universality of moral commandments, the economy cannot have a universal solution for all peoples and all times. A variety of people, God created in the world, reminds us that every nation has its task by the Creator, each valuable in the sight of the Lord, and everyone is able to contribute to the creation of our world. ..."
"... Although outwardly visible collapse of the world colonial system, the richest states of the world in pursuit of the ever-receding horizons of consumption continue to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. It is impossible to recognize to be just international division of labor in which some countries are suppliers of absolute values, especially human labor or raw materials irreversible, while others - suppliers of conditional values in the form of financial resources. ..."
"... Money payed for non-renewable natural resources are often taken in the literal sense "from the air", due to the work of the printing press - thanks to the monopoly position of issuers of world currency. As a result, the abyss in the socio-economic status between the nations and entire continents is becoming increasingly profound. This one-sided globalization, giving undue advantages to some of its participants at the expense of the others, entails a partial and, in some cases, virtually completes loss of sovereignty. ..."
"... If mankind needed freely traded currencies throughout the world to serve as a universal yardstick for economic calculations, the production of such units should be under fair international control, where all states of the world will proportionally participate. Possible benefits of such emissions could be channeled to the development of the poverty-stricken regions of the planet. ..."
"... National governments are increasingly losing their independence and becoming less dependent on the will of their own people, and more and more - the will of the transnational elite. Themselves, these elites are not constituted in the legal space, and is therefore not accountable to neither the people nor the national governments, becoming a shadow regulator of social and economic processes. Greed shadow rulers of the global economy leads to the fact that a thin layer of "elite" is getting richer and at the same time more and more relieved of the responsibility for the welfare of those whose labor created the wealth. ..."
"... Moral society should not increase the gap between rich and poor. Strong does not have the moral right to use their benefits at the expense of the weak, but on the contrary - are obliged to take care of those who are dispossessed. People who are employed should receive decent remuneration. ..."
"... Whole countries and nations are plunged into debt, and generations that are not yet born are doomed to pay the bills of their ancestors. ..."
"... Business expectations in lending, often ghostly becomes more profitable than the production of tangible goods. In this regard, it must be remembered about the moral ambiguity of the situation, when money is "make" new money without the application of human labor. Declaring credit sphere to be the main engine of the economy, its predominance over the real economic sector comes into conflict with the moral principles, reveled by God condemning usury. ..."
"... Attempts by indigenous people of the rich countries to stop the migration flow are futile, because come in conflict with greed of their own elites who are interested in the low-wage workforce. But even more inexorable factor driving migration was the spread of hedonic quasi -religion capturing not only elite, but also the broad masses of people in countries with high living standards. Renunciation of procreation for the most careless, smug and personal existence becomes signs of the times. The popularization of the ideology of child-free, the cult of childless and without family life for themselves lead to a reduction in the population in the most seemingly prosperous societies. ..."
"... We must not forget that the commandment to all the descendants of Adam and Eve, said: "Fill the earth and subdue it." Anyone who does not want to continue his race will inevitably have to give way to the ground for those who prefer having children over material well-being. ..."
"... Globalization has accelerated the consumer race disproportionate to earth resources granted to mankind. Volumes of consumption of goods in those countries, which are recognized worldwide for the samples and which are equal to billions of people, have long gone beyond the resource capabilities of these "model" countries. There is no doubt that, if the whole of humanity will absorb the natural wealth of the intensity of the countries that are leaders in terms of the consumption, there will be an environmental disaster on the planet. ..."
The Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate
has published a draft of the document "Economy in the context of globalization. Orthodox
ethical view. " This document demonstrates the key positions of the Russian Church on a number
of issues relating to the economy and international relations.
1. The Russian Orthodox Church demonstrates that it supports only the trends in modern
international processes that aim to build a multi-polar world, and the dialogue of
civilizations and cultures on the basis of traditional, non-liberal values:
Consolidation of mankind on the basis of the moral commandments of God is fully
consistent with the Christian mission. This incarnation of globalization provides an
opportunity for fraternal mutual assistance, free exchange of creative achievements and
knowledge, respectful coexistence of different languages and cultures, the joint protection of
nature - would be a reasonable and pious.
If the essence of globalization is only to overcome the division between the people, the
content of its economic processes had to be overcome inequalities, the prudent use of earthly
riches, equitable international cooperation.
2. At the same time a large part of the document critically examines the process of
globalization. Church officials say that globalization "remove barriers to the spread of sin
and vice." The Russian Church condemns Westernization and dissemination of the Western cult of
consumption, noting that "the Western way of development" is a road to nowhere, to hell, and
the abyss:
Catch-up model of modernization", having before people's eyes uncritically perceived
external sample, not only destroys the social structure and spiritual life of the "catch-up"
societies, but often does not allow to approach the idol in the material sphere, imposing
unacceptable and ruinous economic decisions.
In contrast to the immutability and universality of moral commandments, the economy
cannot have a universal solution for all peoples and all times. A variety of people, God
created in the world, reminds us that every nation has its task by the Creator, each valuable
in the sight of the Lord, and everyone is able to contribute to the creation of our
world.
3. The Church denounced neocolonialism and the exploitation of the Third World by Western
multinationals. The Russian Orthodox Church considers such a policy to be deeply unjust and
sinful. Control over the financial sector as the main weapon of the new colonialism is
specially marked:
Although outwardly visible collapse of the world colonial system, the richest states of
the world in pursuit of the ever-receding horizons of consumption continue to enrich themselves
at the expense of everyone else. It is impossible to recognize to be just international
division of labor in which some countries are suppliers of absolute values, especially human
labor or raw materials irreversible, while others - suppliers of conditional values in the form
of financial resources.
4. The Christian approach to the economy that the Russian Orthodox Church insists on is
primarily ontological. The only alternative to the global fictitious liberal economy can only
be a real Christian economy. The hegemony of global plutocracy, which is based on financial
capital and the dollar as the universal currency, can be countered only by a global policy of
sovereignty:
Money payed for non-renewable natural resources are often taken in the literal sense
"from the air", due to the work of the printing press - thanks to the monopoly position of
issuers of world currency. As a result, the abyss in the socio-economic status between the
nations and entire continents is becoming increasingly profound. This one-sided globalization,
giving undue advantages to some of its participants at the expense of the others, entails a
partial and, in some cases, virtually completes loss of sovereignty.
5. As one of the ways to solve this problem (dollar hegemony), the Church proposes to
establish international control over global currencies:
If mankind needed freely traded currencies throughout the world to serve as a universal
yardstick for economic calculations, the production of such units should be under fair
international control, where all states of the world will proportionally participate. Possible
benefits of such emissions could be channeled to the development of the poverty-stricken
regions of the planet.
6. However, the strengthening of international institutions, according to representatives of
the Russian Orthodox Church, should not lead to the strengthening of the transnational elite.
The unconditional support of state sovereignty against the transnational elite is a distinctive
feature of the position of the Orthodox Church. This differs the Orthodox from Catholics, who
are members of the globalist transnational centralized structure, in contrast to the Orthodox
Churches, which are united in faith, but not administratively.
National governments are increasingly losing their independence and becoming less
dependent on the will of their own people, and more and more - the will of the transnational
elite. Themselves, these elites are not constituted in the legal space, and is therefore not
accountable to neither the people nor the national governments, becoming a shadow regulator of
social and economic processes. Greed shadow rulers of the global economy leads to the fact that
a thin layer of "elite" is getting richer and at the same time more and more relieved of the
responsibility for the welfare of those whose labor created the wealth.
7. The gap between rich and poor, predatory morality of "free capitalism" in the version of
Hayek, and neoliberal thoughts, according to the representatives of the Russian Orthodox
Church, is incompatible with Christian teaching:
Moral society should not increase the gap between rich and poor. Strong does not have
the moral right to use their benefits at the expense of the weak, but on the contrary - are
obliged to take care of those who are dispossessed. People who are employed should receive
decent remuneration.
8. The Russian Church openly declares his attitude to usury as a sinful phenomenon, and
notes the destructiveness of the global debt economy:
Whole countries and nations are plunged into debt, and generations that are not yet born
are doomed to pay the bills of their ancestors.
Business expectations in lending, often ghostly becomes more profitable than the
production of tangible goods. In this regard, it must be remembered about the moral ambiguity
of the situation, when money is "make" new money without the application of human labor.
Declaring credit sphere to be the main engine of the economy, its predominance over the real
economic sector comes into conflict with the moral principles, reveled by God condemning
usury.
9. Such an important aspect of modern life like mass migration is not left unattended.
Unlike the Catholic approach that unduly favors migrants, particularly in Europe, the Orthodox
notices the negative nature of the process, as well as the fact that it leads to confrontation
of different identities and value systems. In addition, the Orthodox Church propose to look at
the roots of this phenomenon. The reason for the migration is the liberal, hedonistic ideology
bleeding the peoples of Europe and the interests of the capitalist elite, who need a cheap and
disenfranchised workforce:
Attempts by indigenous people of the rich countries to stop the migration flow are
futile, because come in conflict with greed of their own elites who are interested in the
low-wage workforce. But even more inexorable factor driving migration was the spread of hedonic
quasi -religion capturing not only elite, but also the broad masses of people in countries with
high living standards. Renunciation of procreation for the most careless, smug and personal
existence becomes signs of the times. The popularization of the ideology of child-free, the
cult of childless and without family life for themselves lead to a reduction in the population
in the most seemingly prosperous societies.
We must not forget that the commandment to all the descendants of Adam and Eve, said:
"Fill the earth and subdue it." Anyone who does not want to continue his race will inevitably
have to give way to the ground for those who prefer having children over material
well-being.
10. The Russian Church noted that the current level of consumption and the ideology of
infinite progress are incompatible with the limited resources of the planet:
Globalization has accelerated the consumer race disproportionate to earth resources
granted to mankind. Volumes of consumption of goods in those countries, which are recognized
worldwide for the samples and which are equal to billions of people, have long gone beyond the
resource capabilities of these "model" countries. There is no doubt that, if the whole of
humanity will absorb the natural wealth of the intensity of the countries that are leaders in
terms of the consumption, there will be an environmental disaster on the planet.
This document is very important because it shows that the Russian Orthodox Church not only
occupies a critical position in relation to the liberal globalization, but also offers a
Christian alternative to globalization processes. While Catholics and most Protestant
denominations have passionate humanist ideas, and in the best case, criticize globalization
from the left or left-liberal positions, the Russian Orthodox Church advocate sovereignty and
national identity. The most important aspect of the Orthodox critique of globalization is the
idea of multipolarity and the destructiveness of modern Western civilization's path.
It in known that the problem of human rights is thoroughly Orthodox: "The power and means for
promoting worldwide equality and brotherhood lie not in waging crusades but in freely accepting
the cross." He urges a radically personal solution, one that takes as its model the saint, the
martyr, and the ascetic. Here Anastasios draws on the traditional Orthodox understanding of
freedom, which is ordered and tempered by ascetical practice, self-control, and placing limits on
material desires. Churches are to become "laboratories of selfless love," places where the
Kingdom of God is manifest on earth. "Our most important right is our right to realize our
deepest nature and become 'children of God' through grace," he says.
Lest this approach be interpreted as a justification of passiveness and quietism, Anastasios
also urges Christians to exercise their ethical conscience in the world. "Christians must be
vigilant, striving to make the legal and political structure of their society ever more
comprehensive through constant reform and reassessment," he says.
The process of the marketization of the economy from Mill to Becker described earlier is
concluded in Becker's notions of "Human Capital" and "Economics of Crime and Punishment."
Becker reformulates the ethical modes by which one governs one's self by theorizing the
economic self as human capital that generates labor in return for income. Such self-government
is conducted by economizing one's earning power, the form of power that one commands over one's
labor. Theorizing self-government as a form of command over one's own labor, Becker inserts the
power relations of the market, which Smith identified as purchasing power over other people's
labor, into the ethical sphere of the relationship between a person andherself.
Becker's theory of self-government also entails a transformation of the technologies of the
self into an askesis of economizing the scarce means of the marketized self that have
alternative uses for the purpose ofmaximizing the earning and purchasing power one commands in
the mar- ketized economy.
The marketization of the self that turned zoon oikonomikon into a power-craving homo
economicus also makes him governable by the political monarch, as demonstrated in the Economic
analysis of Crime and Punishment. Economic man is governed through the legal framework of the
mar- ket economy. Human action is controlled by tweaking a matrix of punishments and incentives
that make the governed subject, as a prudent creature who craves to maximize his economic
power, freely choose the desired course of action that will ensure economic growth. At the same
time that Becker's technologies of the conduct of the marketized self establish a neoliberal
self-mastery, they also enable the governmental technology of conducting one self conduct in
the all-encompassing and ever growing marketized economy. Although Becker seems to reverse the
ageold ethical question, that is, how can a human, as a governed subject, become free in the
economy, into the technological one of how one can make a free human governable, the end result
is pretty much the same, as the economy is reconstituted as a sphere in which the subject is
seen as free and governed.
A neoliberal interpretation of Hobbes's economic power is found in Tullock and Buchanan's
use of economic theory to "deal with traditional problems of political science," that is, to
trace the works of Smithian economic power that have by now been transposed onto the political
sphere: Incorporat(ing) political activity as a particular form of exchange; and, as in the
market relation, mutual gains to all parties are ideally expected to result from the collective
relation. In a very real sense, therefore, political action is viewed essentially as a means
through which the "power" of all participants may be increased, if we define "power" as the
ability to command things that are desired by men. To be justified by the criteria employed
here, collective action must be advantageous to all parties. (Tullock and Buchanan 1962:23)
And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if
the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a
word (I Kings 18:21).
It seems to me that for many Christians the Gospel of Neoliberalism has replaced the Gospel
of Jesus Christ. I've known that for a long time, and have blogged about it before ( here , and
here , and
here
). But today I was reminded of it again when several people brought various articles on it to
my attention:
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This
is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in
psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from
performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on
external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has
aptly described as the "infantilisation of the workers".
Today the dominant narrative is that of market fundamentalism, widely known in Europe as
neoliberalism. The story it tells is that the market can resolve almost all social, economic
and political problems. The less the state regulates and taxes us, the better off we will be.
Public services should be privatised, public spending should be cut, and business should be
freed from social control. In countries such as the UK and the US, this story has shaped our
norms and values for around 35 years: since Thatcher and Reagan came to power. It is rapidly
colonising the rest of the world.
Neoliberalism draws on the ancient Greek idea that our ethics are innate (and governed by
a state of nature it calls the market) and on the Christian idea that humankind is inherently
selfish and acquisitive. Rather than seeking to suppress these characteristics, neoliberalism
celebrates them: it claims that unrestricted competition, driven by self-interest, leads to
innovation and economic growth, enhancing the welfare of all.
When a Christian script was running in many people's minds (see Counterscript to know what that
refers to) Greed was regarded as one of the Seven Deadly Sins, but in the Gospel according to
Neoliberalism, it is the supreme virtue.
And for many Christians, the Neoliberal script has
started to drown out the Christian one, and so raises the question of Elijah: How long halt
ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him
.
"Baal" is a word that means lord or master, and the deity referred to was Melqart, the god
of the Phoenician city of Tyre. Melqart was a god of rain and fertility, and hence of material
prosperity, and was invoked by Phoenician traders for protection of their commercial
enterprises. In other words, the cult of Baal was a prosperity cult, which had lured the people
of Israel, and was actively promoted by their Phoenician queen Jezebel, the wife of King Ahab.
The people of Israel had the prosperity script playing in their minds.
In our day too, many Christians have the prosperity script playing in their minds.
The post immediately preceding this one, on
Neopentecostal churches and their celebrity pastors , points to a phenomenon that Christian
missiologists like to refer to as inculturation or contextualisation, which, in a good sense,
means making the Christian gospel understandable to people living in a particular culture or
context. But in the prosperity gospel preached by some Neopentecostals, the Christian gospel
has been swamped by the values of Neoliberalism. One could say that "prosperity theology" is
the contextualisation of the Christian gospel in a society dominated by Neoliberal values, but
to such an extent that the result is syncretism.
But while the Neopentecostals sometimes do this explicitly, many other Christian groups do
it implicitly, and we need to ask ourselves where our values really come from -- from the
gospel of Jesus Christ, or from the gospel of the Market. Jesus Christ is the love of God
incarnate, but the Market, or Melqart, or Mammon, is the love of money incarnate.
When the world urges us to celebrate the virtues of Greed, whether subtly or blatantly, do
we resist it? Are we even aware of what is happening? Or do we simply allow that script to play
in our heads, telling us "You deserve it"?
Last week a couple of journalists were asking me why Neopentecostal churches that preach a
properity gospel, like T.B. Joshua's Synagogue Church of all Nations, are growing in
popularity, and one answer is that given by George Monbiot in the article quoted above -- that
the values of Neoliberalism, promoted by Reagan and Thatcher, are now colonising the whole
world.
In Christian tradition, the
love of money is condemned as a sin primarily based on texts
such as Ecclesiastes 5.10 and
1 Timothy 6:10. The Jewish and
Christian condemnation relates to avarice
and greed rather than
money itself. Christian texts (scriptures) are full of
parables and use easy to understand subjects, such as money, to convey the actual message, there are further parallels in
Solon and
Aristotle,[1]
and Massinissa-who ascribed love of
money to Hannibal and the
Carthaginians.[2].
While certain political ideologies, such as
neoliberalism, assume and promote the view that the behavior that capitalism fosters in individuals is natural to humans,[2][3]
anthropologists like
Richard Robbins
point out that there is nothing natural about this behavior - people are not naturally dispossessed to accumulate wealth and
driven by wage-labor
Neoliberalism abstract the economic sphere from other aspects of society (politics, culture, family etc., with any political
activity constituting an
intervention into the natural process of the market, for example) and assume that people make rational exchanges in the sphere
of market transactions. In reality rational economic exchanges are actually heavily influenced by pre-existing social ties and
other factors.
Under neoliberalism both the society and culture revolve around business activity (the accumulation of capital). As such,
business activity and the "free market" exchange (despite the fact that "free market" never existed in human history) are often
viewed as being absolute or "natural" in that all other human social relations revolve around these processes (or should exist to
facilitate one's ability to perform these processes
Notable quotes:
"... Conwell equated poverty with sin and asserted that anyone could become rich through hard work. This gospel of wealth, however, was an expression of Muscular Christianity and understood success to be the result of personal effort rather than divine intervention. [5] ..."
"... They criticized many aspects of the prosperity gospel, noting particularly the tendency of believers to lack compassion for the poor, since their poverty was seen as a sign that they had not followed the rules and therefore are not loved by God ..."
According to historian Kate Bowler , the prosperity gospel was formed
from the intersection of three different ideologies: Pentecostalism , New Thought , and "an American gospel of
pragmatism, individualism, and upward mobility". [4]
This "American gospel" was best exemplified by Andrew Carnegie 's Gospel of Wealth and Russell Conwell 's famous sermon
"Acres of Diamonds", in which Conwell equated poverty with sin and asserted that anyone could
become rich through hard work. This gospel of wealth, however, was an expression of Muscular Christianity
and understood success to be the result of personal effort rather than divine intervention.
[5]
... ... ...
In 2005, Matthew
Ashimolowo , the founder of the largely African
Kingsway International Christian Centre in southern England, which preaches a "health and
wealth" gospel and collects regular tithes, was ordered by the Charity Commission to repay money he had
appropriated for his personal use. In 2017, the organisation was under criminal investigation
after a leading member was found by a court in 2015 to have operated a Ponzi scheme between 2007 and 2011, losing or
spending £8 million of investors' money. [43]
36]Hanna Rosin of The Atlantic argues that
prosperity theology contributed to the housing bubble that caused the
late-2000s
financial crisis . She maintains that home ownership was heavily emphasized in prosperity
churches, based on reliance on divine financial intervention that led to unwise choices based
on actual financial ability. [36]
... ... ...
Historian Carter
Lindberg of Boston University has drawn parallels
between contemporary prosperity theology and the medieval indulgence trade .
[69] Coleman notes that several pre–20th century Christian movements in the
United States taught that a holy lifestyle was a path to prosperity and that God-ordained hard
work would bring blessing. [16]
... ... ...
In April 2015, LDS apostle
Dallin H. Oaks
stated that people who believe in "the theology of prosperity" are deceived by riches. He
continued by saying that the "possession of wealth or significant income is not a mark of
heavenly favor, and their absence is not evidence of heavenly disfavor". He also cited how
Jesus differentiated the attitudes towards money held by the young rich man in Mark
10:17–24, the good Samaritan, and Judas Iscariot in his betrayal. Oaks concluded this
portion of his sermon by highlighting that the "root of all evil is not money but the love of
money". [90]
In 2015, well known pastor and prosperity gospel advocate Creflo Dollar launched a
fundraising campaign to replace a previous private jet with a $65 million Gulfstream G650.
[91] On the August
16, 2015 episode of his HBO
weekly series Last
Week Tonight , John Oliver satirized prosperity
theology by announcing that he had established his own tax-exempt church, called Our Lady of
Perpetual Exemption . In a lengthy segment, Oliver focused on what he characterized as the
predatory conduct of televangelists who appeal for repeated gifts from people in financial
distress or personal crises, and he criticized the very loose requirements for entities to
obtain tax exempt status as churches under U.S. tax law. Oliver said that he would ultimately
donate any money collected by the church to Doctors Without Borders .
[92]
In July 2018, Antonio Spadaro and Marcelo Figueroa, in the Jesuit journal La Civilità
Cattolica , examined the origins of the prosperity gospel in the United States and
described it as a reductive version of the American Dream which had offered
opportunities of success and prosperity unreachable in the Old World . The authors distinguished the
prosperity gospel from Max
Weber 's Protestant
ethic , noting that the protestant ethic related prosperity to religiously inspired
austerity while the prosperity gospel saw prosperity as the simple result of personal faith.
They criticized many aspects of the prosperity gospel, noting particularly the tendency of
believers to lack compassion for the poor, since their poverty was seen as a sign that they had
not followed the rules and therefore are not loved by God . [93][94]
Neoliberalism, the economic stablemate of big religion's Prosperity Evangelism cult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
. Dual streams of bull shit to confuse the citizens while the Country's immense wealth is
stolen.
"... What sticks in the neoliberalism craw is that the state provides these services instead of private businesses, and as such "rob" them of juicy profits! The state, the last easy cash cow! ..."
"... Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church. ..."
"... when Thatcher and Reagan deregulated the financial markets in the 80s, that's when the trouble began which in turn led to the immense crash in 2008. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism is just another symptom of liberal democracy which is government by oligarchs with a veneer of democracy ..."
"... The state has merged with the corporations so that what is good for the corporations is good for the state and visa versa. The larger and richer the state/corporations are, the more shyster lawyers they hire to disguise misdeeds and unethical behavior. ..."
"... If you support a big government, you are supporting big corporations as well. The government uses the taxpayer as an eternal fount of fresh money and calls it their own to spend as they please. Small businesses suffer unfairly because they cannot afford the shyster lawyers and accountants that protect the government and the corporations, but nobody cares about them. ..."
"... Deborah's point about the illogical demands of neoliberalism are indeed correct, which is somewhat ironic as neoliberalism puts objective rationality at the heart of its philosophy, but I digress... ..."
"... There would not be NHS, free education etc. without socialism; in fact they are socialism. It took the Soviet-style socialism ("statism") 70 years to collapse. The neoliberalistic capitalism has already started to collapse after 30 years. ..."
"... I'm always amused that neoliberal - indeed, capitalist - apologists cannot see the hypocrisy of their demands for market access. Communities create and sustain markets, fund and maintain infrastructure, produce and maintain new consumers. Yet the neolibs decry and destroy. Hypocrites or destructive numpties - never quite decided between Pickles and Gove ..."
"... 97% of all OUR money has been handed over to these scheming crooks. Stop bailing out the banks with QE. Take back what is ours -- state control over the creation of money. Then let the banks revert to their modest market-based function of financial intermediaries. ..."
"... The State can't be trusted to create our money? Well they could hardly do a worse job than the banks! Best solution would be to distribute state-created money as a Citizen's Income. ..."
"... To promote the indecent obsession for global growth Australia, burdened with debt of around 250 billion dollars, is to borrow and pay interest on a further 7 billion dollars to lend to the International Monetary Fund so as it can lend it to poorer nations to burden them with debt. ..."
This private good, public bad is a stupid idea, and a totally artificial divide. After all,
what are "public spends"? It is the money from private individuals, and companies,
clubbing together to get services they can't individually afford.
What sticks in the
neoliberalism craw is that the state provides these services instead of private businesses,
and as such "rob" them of juicy profits! The state, the last easy cash cow!
Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it
will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. It's acolytes are required
to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or
Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because
that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and
it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be
made a fully fledged bastard.
Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a
neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot
be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self
serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church.
It's subsumed the entire planet, and waiting for them to see sense is a hopeless cause. In
the end it'll probably take violence to rid us of the Neoliberal parasite... the turn of the
century plague.
"Capitalism, especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has
won and countless people have gained as a result."
I agree with you and it was this beneficial version of capitalism that brought down the
Iron Curtain. Working people in the former Communist countries were comparing themselves with
working people in the west and wanted a piece of that action. Cuba has hung on because people
there compare themselves with their nearest capitalist neighbor Haiti and they don't want a
piece of that action. North Korea well North Korea is North Korea.
Isn't it this beneficial capitalism that is being threatened now though? When the wall
came down it was assumed that Eastern European countries would become more like us. Some have
but who would have thought that British working people would now be told, by the likes of
Kwasi Kwarteng and his Britannia Unchained chums, that we have to learn to accept working
conditions that are more like those in the Eastern European countries that got left behind
and that we are now told that our version of Capitalism is inferior to the version adopted by
the Communist Party of China?
@bullwinkle - No , when Thatcher and Reagan deregulated the financial markets in the 80s,
that's when the trouble began which in turn led to the immense crash in 2008.
Neo-liberalism is just another symptom of liberal democracy which is government by oligarchs
with a veneer of democracy.
This type of government began in America about 150 years ago with the Rockefellers,
Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Ford etc who took advantage of new inventions, cheap immigrant labour
and financial deregulation in finance and social mores to amass wealth for themselves and
chaos and austerity for workers.
All this looks familiar again today with new and old oligarchs hiding behind large
corporations taking advantage of the invention of the €uro, mass immigration into
western Europe and deregulation of the financial "markets" and social mores to amass wealth
for a super-wealthy elite and chaos and austerity for workers.
So if we want to see where things went wrong we need only go back 150 years to what happened
to America. There we can also see our future?
The beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has won
Free education and the NHS are state institutions. As Debbie said, Amazon never taught
anyone to read. Beneficial capitalism is an oxymoron resulting from your lack of
understanding.
especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has won and
countless people have gained as a result.
At one and the same time being privatized and having their funding squeezed, a direct
result of the neoliberal dogma capitalism of austerity. Free access is being eroded by the
likes of ever larger student loans and prescription costs for a start.
they avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than
governments
Let's not get carried away here. Let's consider some of the things governments can do,
subject only to a 5 yearly check and challenge:
force people upon pain of imprisonment to pay taxes to them
pay out that tax money to whomever they like
spend money they don't have by borrowing against obligations imposed on future taxpayers
without their agreement
kill people in wars, often from the comfort of a computer screen thousands of miles
away
print money and give it to whomever they like,
get rid of nation state currencies and replace them with a single, centrally controlled
currency
make laws and punish people who break them, including the ability to track them down in
most places in the world if they try and run away.
use laws to create monopolies and favour special interests
Let's now consider what power apple have...
- they can make iPhones and try to sell them for a profit by responding to the demands of
the mass consumer market. That's it. In fact, they are forced to do this by their owners who
only want them to do this, and nothing else. If they don't do this they will cease to
exist.
The state has merged with the corporations so that what is good for the corporations is good
for the state and visa versa. The larger and richer the state/corporations are, the more
shyster lawyers they hire to disguise misdeeds and unethical behavior.
If you support a big government, you are supporting big corporations as well. The
government uses the taxpayer as an eternal fount of fresh money and calls it their own to
spend as they please. Small businesses suffer unfairly because they cannot afford the shyster
lawyers and accountants that protect the government and the corporations, but nobody cares
about them. Remember, that Green Energy is big business, just like Big Pharma and Big Oil.
Most government shills have personally invested in Green Energy not because they care about
the environment, only because they know that it is a safe investment protected by government
for government. The same goes for large corporations who befriend government and visa
versa.
@NeilThompson - It's all very well for Deborah to recommend that the well paid share work.
Journalists, consultants and other assorted professionals can afford to do so. As a
self-employed tradesman, I'd be homeless within a month.
@SpinningHugo - Interesting that those who are apparently concerned with prosperity for all
and international solidarity are happy to ignore the rest of the world when it's going well,
preferring to prophesy apocalypse when faced with government spending being slightly reduced
at home.
@1nn1t - That is a point which just isn't made enough. This is the first group of politicians
for whom a global conflict seems like a distant event.
As a result we have people like Blair who see nothing wrong with invading countries at a
whim, or conservatives and UKIP who fail to understand the whole point of the European Court
of Human Rights.
They seem to act without thought of our true place in the world, without regard for the
truly terrible capacity humanity has for self destruction.
Deborah's point about the illogical demands of neoliberalism are indeed correct, which is
somewhat ironic as neoliberalism puts objective rationality at the heart of its philosophy,
but I digress...
The main problem with replacing neoliberalism with a more rational, and fairer system,
entails that people like Deborah accept that they will be less wealthy. And that my friends is the main problem. People like Deborah, while they are more than
happy to point the fingers at others, are less than happy to accept that they are also part
of the problem.
(Generalisation Caveat: I don't know in actuality if Deborah would be unhappy to be less
wealthy in exchange for a fairer system, she doesn't say)
Good critique of conservative-neoliberalism, unless you subscribe to it and subordinate any
morals or other values to it.
She mentions an internal tension and I think that's because conservatism and neoliberal
market ideology are different beasts.
There are different models of capitalism quite clearly the social democratic version in
Scandinavia or the "Bismarkian" German version have worked a lot better than the UKs.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign
that financial institutions may slowly be coming round to the idea that they are the
problem.
How is it a sign of that? We are offered no clues.
What they don't seem to acknowledge is that the merry days of reckless lending are never
going to return;
Try reading a history of financial crashes to dislodge this idea.
... even if they do, the same thing will happen again, but more quickly and more
savagely.
This may or may not be true but here it is mere assertion.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt.
At this point I start to have real doubts as to whether Deborah Orr has actually read even
the Executive Summary of the Report this article is ostensibly a response to.
All the comments that follow about the need for public infrastructure, education,
regulated markets and so on are made as if they were a criticism of the IMF and yet the IMF
says many of those same things itself. The IMF position may, of course, be contradictory -
but then that is something that would need to be demonstrated. It seems that Deborah has not
got beyond reading a couple of Guardian articles on the issues she discusses and therefore is
in no position to do this.
Efforts are being made to narrow the skills gap with other countries in the region, as
the authorities look to take full advantage of Bangladesh's favorable demographics and help
create conditions for more labor-intensive led growth. The government is also scaling up
spending on education, science and technology, and information and communication
technology.
Which seems to be the sort of thing Deborah Orr is calling for. She should spend a little
time on the IMF website before criticising the institution. It is certainly one that merits
much criticism - but it needs to be informed.
And the solution to the problems? For Deborah Orr the response
... from the start should have been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth
is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment", as the philosopher
John Gray has said all along.
Does anyone have any idea what this is supposed to mean? There are certainly no leads on
this in the link given to "the philosopher" John Gray. And what a strange reference that is.
John Gray, in his usual cynical mode, dismisses the idea of progress being achieved by the
EU. But then I suppose that is consistent from a man who dismisses the idea of progress
itself.
... Conservative neoliberalism is entirely without logic.
The first step in serious political analysis is to understand that the people one opposes
are not crazy and are not devoid of logic. If that is not clearly understood then all that is
left is the confrontation of assertion and contrary assertion. Of course Conservative
neoliberalism has a logic. It is one I do not agree with but it is a logic all the same.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this [the need
for public investment and a recognition of the multiple roles that individuals have].
Wrong again.
It insists that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a
market.
And again.
This stuff can't be made up as you go along on the basis of reading a couple of newspaper
articles. You actually have to do some hard reading to get to grip with the issues. I can see
no signs of that in this piece.
@NotAgainAgain - We are going off topic and that is in no small part down to my own fault, so
apologies. Just to pick up the point, I guess my unease with the likes of Buffet, Cooper-Hohn
or even the wealthy Guardian columnists is that they are criticizing the system from a
position of power and wealth.
So its easy to advocate change if you feel that you are in the vanguard of defining that
change i.e. the reforms you advocate may leave you worse off, but at a level you feel
comfortable with (the prime example always being Polly's deeply relaxed attitude to swingeing
income tax increases when her own lifestyle will be protected through wealth).
I guess I am a little skeptical because I either see it as managed decline, a smokescreen
or at worst mean spiritedness of people prepared to accept a reasonable degree of personal
pain if it means other people whom dislike suffer much greater pain.
"There is a clear legal basis in Germany for the workplace representation of employees in
all but the very smallest companies. Under the Works Constitution Act, first passed in 1952
and subsequently amended, most recently in 2001, a works council can be set up in all private
sector workplaces with at least five employees."
The UK needs to wake up to the fact that managers are sometimes inept or corrupt and will
destroy the companies they work for, unless their are adequate mechanisms to hold poor
management to account.
Capitalism, especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has
won
There would not be NHS, free education etc. without socialism; in fact they are
socialism. It took the Soviet-style socialism ("statism") 70 years to collapse. The neoliberalistic
capitalism has already started to collapse after 30 years.
I'm always amused that neoliberal - indeed, capitalist - apologists cannot see the hypocrisy
of their demands for market access. Communities create and sustain markets, fund and maintain
infrastructure, produce and maintain new consumers. Yet the neolibs decry and destroy.
Hypocrites or destructive numpties - never quite decided between Pickles and Gove, y'see.
@JamesValencia - Actually on reflection you are correct and I was wrong in my attack on the
author above. Having re-read the article its a critique of institutions rather than people so
my points were wide of the mark.
I still think that well heeled Guardian writers aren't really in a position to attack the
wealthy and politically connected, but I'll save that for a thread when they explicitly do
so, rather than the catch all genie of neoliberalism.
@CaptainGrey - deregulated capitalism has failed. That is the product of the last 20
years. The pure market is a fantasy just as communism is or any other ideology. In a pure
capitalist economy all the banks of the western world would have bust and indeed the false
value "earned" in the preceding 20 years would have been destroyed.
If the pure market is a fantasy, how can deregulated capitalism have failed? Does one not
require the other? Surely it is regulated capitalism that has failed?
97% of all OUR money has been handed over to these scheming crooks. Stop bailing out the
banks with QE. Take back what is ours -- state control over the creation of money. Then let
the banks revert to their modest market-based function of financial intermediaries.
The State can't be trusted to create our money? Well they could hardly do a worse job than
the banks! Best solution would be to distribute state-created money as a Citizen's
Income.
@1nn1t - Some good points, there is a whole swathe of low earners that should not be in the
tax system at all, simply letting them keep the money in their pocket would be a start.
Second the minimum wage (especially in the SE) is too low and should be increased.
Obviously the devil is in the detail as to the precise rate, the other issue is non
compliance as there will be any number of businesses that try and get around this, through
employing people too ignorant or scared to know any better or for family businesses - do we
have the stomach to enforce this?
Thirdly there is a widespread reluctance to separate people from the largesse of the
state, even at absurd levels of income such as higher rate payers (witness child tax
credits). On the right they see themselves as having paid in and so are "entitled" to have
something back and on the left it ensures that everyone has a vested interest in a big state
dipping it hands into your pockets one day and giving you something back the next.
@Uncertainty - Which is why the people of the planet need to join hands.
The only group of people in he UK to see that need were the generation that faced WW2
together.
It's no accident that, joining up at 18 in 1939, they had almost all retired by 1984.
To promote the indecent obsession for global growth Australia, burdened with debt of around
250 billion dollars, is to borrow and pay interest on a further 7 billion dollars to lend to
the International Monetary Fund so as it can lend it to poorer nations to burden them with
debt.
It is entrapment which impoverishes nations into the surrender of sovereignty,
democracy and national pride. In no way should we contribute to such economic immorality and
the entire economic system based on perpetual growth fuelled by consumerism and debt needs
top be denounced and dismantled. The adverse social and environmental consequence of
perpetual growth defies all sensible logic and in time, in a more responsible and enlightened
era, growth will be condemned.
Like bolshevism this secular regions is to a large extent is a denial of Christianity. While Bolshevism is closer to the Islam,
Neoliberalism is closer to Judaism.
The idea of " Homo economicus " -- a person who in all
his decisions is governed by self-interest and greed is bunk.
Notable quotes:
"... There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism is in theory whilst completely ignoring what it is in practice. ..."
"... In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable are). The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can pay for, otherwise you can just pay... like everyone else. In Asia and South America it has been the economic preference of dictators that pushes profit upwards and responsibility down, just like it does here. ..."
"... We all probably know the answer to this. In order to maintain the consent necessary to create inequality in their own interests the neoliberals have to tell big lies, and keep repeating them until they appear to be the truth. They've gotten so damn good at it. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. ..."
"... It's acolytes are required to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be made a fully fledged bastard ..."
"... Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church. ..."
Unless you are completely confused by what neoliberalism is there is not a shred of logical sense in this.
There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism
is in theory whilst completely ignoring what it is in practice.
In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable
are). The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism.
Savers in a neoliberal society are lambs to the slaughter. Thatcher "revitalised" banking, while everything else withered and
died.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom, communism is definitely not. Neoliberalist policies have lifted
millions of people out of poverty in Asia and South America.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can pay for, otherwise you can just pay... like
everyone else. In Asia and South America it has been the economic preference of dictators that pushes profit upwards and responsibility
down, just like it does here.
I find it ironic that it now has 5 year plans that absolutely must not be deviated from, massive state intervention in markets
(QE, housing policy, tax credits... insert where applicable), and advocates large scale central planning even as it denies reality,
and makes the announcement from a tractor factory.
Neoliberalism is a blight... a cancer on humanity... a massive lie told by rich people and believed only by peasants happy
to be thrown a turnip. In theory it's one thing, the reality is entirely different. Until we're rid of it, we're all it's slaves.
It's an abhorrent cult that comes up with purest bilge like expansionary fiscal contraction to keep all the money in the hands
of the rich.
Why, you have to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer unsustainability, not blindingly obvious to all?
We all probably know the answer to this. In order to maintain the consent necessary to create inequality in their own interests
the neoliberals have to tell big lies, and keep repeating them until they appear to be the truth. They've gotten so damn good
at it.
Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it
will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers.
It's acolytes are required
to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or
Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because
that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and
it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be
made a fully fledged bastard.
Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a
neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot
be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self
serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church.
It's subsumed the entire planet, and waiting for them to see sense is a hopeless cause. In
the end it'll probably take violence to rid us of the Neoliberal parasite... the turn of the
century plague.
Thatcher (aka "Milk Snatcher" ) pushed neoliberalism and globalization as the solution of
New Deal Capitalism problems. Now the UK arrived at the dead end of this "1 Neoliberal Road"
and now needs to pay the price. So much for TINA.
From a pure propaganda standpoint, Neoliberalism is just a sanitized-sounding expression, to
cover-up the fact that what we really see here is re-branded corporatist ideology.
That's why the crisis of neoliberalism created Renaissance for far-right movements in
Europe, which now threaten to destroy its "globalization" component and switch to "national
neoliberalism" (aka Trumpism) as the solution to the current crisis of neoliberalism ( aka
"secular stagnation" which started in 2008).
Ideology is as dead as Bolshevik's ideology became in early 60th. And I see Trump as a
somewhat similar figure to Khrushchev. An uneducated reformer with huge personal flaws, but
still a reformer of "classic neoliberalism." Which was rejected by voters with Hillary Clinton,
was not it ?
As financial oligarchy is pretty powerful and, as we now see, have intelligence agencies as
a part of their "toolset", the trend right now is to rely on "patriotic military" and far-right
nationalism to counter neoliberal globalization.
We will see where it would get us, but with oil over $100 Goldman employees might eventually
really find themselves under fire like in Omaha beach.
Hayek, while a second rate economist, proved to be a talented theologian, and he managed to
create what can be called "civil religion" not that different from Mormonism or
Scientology.
It was mostly based on Trotskyism rebranded for financial elite instead of the proletariat
and the network of think tanks instead of "professional revolutionaries" of the Communist Party
("Financial oligarchy of all countries unite", "All power to Goldman Sacks and Bank of
America," etc.).
Pope Francis did a pretty good theological analysis of this secular religion in his
Evangelii Gaudium, Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis, 2013. Rephrasing Oscar Wilde, we can
say that "objective analysis is the analysis of ideologies we do not like".
He pointed out that neoliberalism explicitly rejects the key idea of Christianity -- the
idea of equal and ultimate justice for all sinners as a noble social goal. The idea that a
human being should struggle to create justice ( including "economic justice") in this world
even if the ultimate solution is beyond his grasp. "Greed is good" is as far from Christianity
as Satanism.
As Reinhold Niebuhr noted a world where there is only one center of power and authority
(financial oligarchy under neoliberalism) "preponderant and unchallenged... its world rule
almost certainly violate the basic standard of justice".
Here are selected quotes from Evangelii Gaudium, Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis,
2013
... Such a [neoliberal] economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an
elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two
points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away
while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the
laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the
powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized:
without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We
have created a "disposable" culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about
exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it
means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society's
underside or its fringes or it's disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of
it. The excluded are not the "exploited" but the outcast, the "leftovers."
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume
that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about
greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed
by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding
economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile,
the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain
enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed.
Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the
outcry of the poor, weeping for other people's pain, and feeling a need to help them, as
though all this were someone else's responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity
deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the
meantime, all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to
move us.
"... not all forms of economic liberalization are equally good: some reforms can be so inadequately designed as to harm the interests of the poor, especially in the short term. ..."
Societies marked by oligarchy, that is, rigged to help the privileged elites at the expense
of everyone else, require more than merely the removal of anti-competitive rules and
regulations. The reason, according to Martinez, is that not all forms of economic
liberalization are equally good: some reforms can be so inadequately designed as to harm the
interests of the poor, especially in the short term.
This raises the questions: Are the poor better off under a market economy? Is the invisible
hand conducive to giving people a hand? Pope Francis's assessment is often negative.
"[U]nbridled capitalism," he has claimed, "has taught the logic of profit at any cost, of
giving in order to receive, of exploitation without looking at the person."
...Although the pope is on target in his admonition against worshipping the false god of a
"deified market," according to Waterman, his encyclical Laudato si' is flawed, due in
no small measure to its failure to acknowledge the good that markets do by channeling
self-interest to serve the common good.
"... Unfortunately, if we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God's expectations. Man, especially in our time, has without hesitation devastated wooded plains and valleys, polluted waters, disfigured the earth's habitat, made the air unbreathable, disturbed the hydrogeological and atmospheric systems, turned luxuriant areas into deserts and undertaken forms of unrestrained industrialization, degrading that "flowerbed" – to use an image from Dante Alighieri (Paradiso, XXII, 151) – which is the earth, our dwelling-place. ..."
Unfortunately, if we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has
disappointed God's expectations. Man, especially in our time, has without hesitation devastated
wooded plains and valleys, polluted waters, disfigured the earth's habitat, made the air
unbreathable, disturbed the hydrogeological and atmospheric systems, turned luxuriant areas
into deserts and undertaken forms of unrestrained industrialization, degrading that "flowerbed"
– to use an image from Dante Alighieri (Paradiso, XXII, 151) – which is the earth,
our dwelling-place.
March 7, 2016 Super Tuesday and Super Saturday came and went. As expected, Donald Trump dominated the competition.
Sort of.
While Trump did exceptionally well in states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere in the South, The Donald has stumbled
as of late, coming in second to Ted Cruz in a number of recent contests.
Trump will likely expand his delegate lead in the coming weeks. However, he won't arrive at the Republican convention with enough
of them to secure the nomination outright.
If that happens, the oligarchs in the Republican Party will do everything they can at the convention to deny Trump that which
would rightfully be his.
It's been rumored that Mitt Romney will be called upon by the establishment to save the Party of Lincoln from being "torn asunder."
Some Republicans say they simply won't vote for Mr. Trump. Others suggest running a third party "conservative" candidate.
However it shakes out, if reaction to Romney's anti-Trump press conference held earlier this month indicates anything, it's that
refusing the billionaire from New York the nomination if he has the majority of delegates would literally break the GOP in two.
Before discussing what a Trump victory would mean for the Republican Party, let's backtrack a bit and try to put this man's candidacy
into context. If possible, a Catholic context.
American "exceptionalism"
Since the Second World War but most especially since the early 1990s, a cabal of intellectuals desirous of global empire have
hubristically argued that it is America's duty to advance "freedom" and "democracy" to "the people" of the world, all in the name
of bringing about a lasting "peace."
Of course, when these men speak of "freedom" what they really mean is massive economic inequality and social hedonism. And when
these men speak of "democracy" what they truly mean is rigged elections with candidates that they and not "the people" get to pick.
(See the U.S.-backed coup that took place in Ukraine in February 2014 for evidence of this.)
Despite the lofty language used to trick Americans into supporting this political pyramid scheme, the reality is that bringing
about this so-called "peace" is a dirty business.
For one, the U.S. essentially bribes countries into joining NATO. Economically sanctioning those who refuse to do so.
Two, when leaders from sovereign Middle Eastern nations are no longer viewed as politically useful, they're assassinated. Of course,
the more diplomatic way to put it is "so and so has to go! "
And three, sustaining American imperialism oversees requires the funneling of billions of taxpayer dollars to Islamic states like
Saudi Arabia and providing firearms to "moderate rebels" in countries most people can't locate on a map.
As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined
in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly."
As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands,
if not millions, of lives.
The end game, of course, is to pick off Eastern European countries one by one in order to expand NATO (something the U.S. promised
decades ago they wouldn't do) so that "liberal democracy" can be established not only there but also in North Africa and, most importantly,
in Russia.
Globalism
Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives.
To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing
a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man.
For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats
and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers.
While paying lip service to social conservatism, limited government, constitutionalism and state's rights these war hawks hijacked
the Republican Party and surgically transformed it into a weak-kneed, open borders, bloodthirsty Frankenstein in the service of international
elites.
Though insurgent candidates like Pat Buchanan in the 1990s reminded folks about the direction this clandestine group of war criminals
was leading the country, the monied class acted quickly and decisively. Buchanan's warnings about 1) the looming culture wars 2)
the harm cheap labor abroad would have on the American middle class 3) the problems associated with not securing the border and 4)
the debt and death required with being the policeman of the world were easily tamped down, thanks in no small part to the help of
the corporate media.
Since that time Americans have had to choose between presidential candidates who, at the end of the day, were nothing more than
cogs in the globalist's wheel.
Enter Trump
Donald J. Trump has the temperament of an eight year old child. He mocks. He condescends. He can't give specifics to half the
things he talks about. And I don't trust him on social issues. Put another way, I have the same concerns about Mr. Trump as American
Conservative contributor Rod Dreher does
.
For good reason, these facts and many others, have a large number of folks, including many Catholics, deeply disturbed.
At the same time, much of his public image is an act, and he has turned out be a shrewder political operator than I expected.
No one, and I mean no one, predicted he would have this much success.
People support Trump not necessarily because of his policies but because of what he represents. And what he represents is the
frustration ordinary, mostly white, Americans have towards politics in general. More specifically, the antipathy they have towards
the feckless politicians the Republican Party has nominated over the past thirty years who have largely failed to halt the social
and economic decay of the United States.
Against the neocons
Despite his inconsistency, immaturity and, at times, imbecility, Trump has been clear on several important policies. Policies
that can be appreciated from a Catholic viewpoint.
In
an article for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel Mcadams outlines where Trump differentiates himself from
the war hawks in his party.
First, according to Mcadams Trump states "the obvious" when he says "the Iraq war was brought to us by the liars of the neoconservative
movement" and that it was a "total disaster" for the rest of us who "are forced to pay for their fantasies of world domination."
Second, Trump wants to "actually speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin to see if US/Russia differences can be worked out
without a potentially world-ending nuclear war."
Third, although Trump is "arguing that he is hugely pro-Israel" he is "nevertheless suggesting that if the US is to play a role
in the Israel/Palestine issue the US side should take a neutral role in the process."
Fourth, Trump is also calling out the "idiotic neocon advice" that resulted in the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya that has led
to "the red carpet" being "laid down for ISIS" in that failed state.
And lastly, Trump is "suggesting that it may be a good thing that Russia be bombing ISIS into oblivion and that we might want
to just sit back and let that happen for once."
Push back
The ruling class disdains each and every one of these positions. And for good reason.
By talking about the Iraq War and claiming Bush lied about it, Trump reminds us about the back room dealings and costs, both human
and monetary, spreading "freedom" and "democracy" necessarily entails. And by drawing attention to the disastrous situation in Libya,
Trump shines light on the foolishness of nation building abroad and the need to nation build at home. Obviously, all of this causes
voters to have a less favorable view of foreign intervention in the future.
By painting Putin as a potential ally instead of a "thug," Trump de-programs Americans from thinking of the Russian President
as Josef Stalin re-incarnated. It also disabuses ordinary citizens from seeing everything through an us-versus-them prism. Having
a villain to point at evokes patriotism at home and affirms Americans in the moral right-ness of the pursuit of spreading "liberty."
Neocons have long understood this. And Trump could potentially reverse that paradigm.
Furthermore, by taking a "neutral" stance towards Israel, Trump is indicating that he may put American interests ahead of Zionist
interests. In other words, Trump would likely approach the Middle East in a way that holds Israel to the same moral standards as
others. Realizing that this may result in an American president who refuses to be silent about the terrorist attacks Israelis commit
against Palestinians on an almost daily basis, the globalists and their cronies in the media have been quick to compare Trump with,
you guessed it, Adolf Hitler.
Going forward
Neoconservatives, in short, are apoplectic over a possible Trump presidency. His success could mean their demise, if only for
a short while.
To be sure, it is difficult to know who Trump would surround himself with if he were to win the presidency. Would he call up Henry
Kissinger? Would he seek the advice of the Council on Foreign Relations? I don't know.
But what I do know is that as of right now Trump appears to have all the right enemies. Enemies that include the neo-Catholic
neocon community. Read
here .
Now, don't expect the elites to go silently into the night. The attacks in the coming days and weeks will only get more vicious.
We've already seen how quickly they brought up "the 1930s." Additionally, more than 100 self-identified "members of the Republican
national security community" have signed an
open letter
excoriating Trump for his foreign policy views, adding that they are "united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency."
Unsurprisingly, some of them have said
they would support Hillary Clinton, a Democratic neocon, instead of Trump in the general election.
So much for party loyalty.
In brief, a Trump nomination means the internationalists would no longer dictate the terms of America's economic and foreign policy.
Moreover, if Trump arrives at the Republican convention with the majority of delegates and is denied the nomination, it will be clear
to all that we live in country that is anything but a democracy.
Indeed, far from being a "breaking" of the GOP in two, wouldn't a Trump victory be nothing more than a re-calibration of the party
to what it stood for historically? A party that serves the will of the American people instead of global elites?
I utterly despise Neocons, whether in Politics & Government or as Catholic Church Commentators.
This is why I come to akacatholic.com, The Remnant Newspaper & Catholic Family News.
In Politics, Conservatives would use The Bomb, while Neocons would engage in "Protective Reaction", whatever that means.
In The Case of Louie, Mike Matt, Chris Ferrara, John Vennari, Dr John Rao & Ann Barnhardt, one is told the truth as it occurred.
There are no "Sweeps Week Specials" by People who are financed by Fat Cats & sound like Shills for said Fat Cats, while broadcasting
from a Miniaturized Version of The CBS Broadcast Center on West 57th Street, from a Suburb of The Motor City, who tells everyone
that what The Pope Said was a Mistranslation, while making Hay of Cardinal Dolan, passing wind on the Uptown Platform of the IND
6th Avenue Subway, all while the Polemicist is telling the World that The SSPX is in Schism. No, THAT Guy, despite the Bells &
Whistles, is a Neo Catholic, who in many cases, cannot get his facts straight.
The NeoCatholics are the ones telling people that Girl Altar Servers are OK because the Pope says so. Ditto, Sancte Communion
A Mano & Altar Tables facing the Congregation.You know WHO They Are.
But something I have noticed is that when it comes to Intelligent Conversation on the message boards, the Neo Catholics will
not tolerate dissent vis a vis their position. The one with his broadcast centre is a classic example, with commenters practically
forced to pay homage to The Fearless Leader's Position, even when not well researched.
Those who hold the Traditional Catholic Position, allow True Discussion on matters Catholic.
Traditional Catholic is true Freedom, without being patronizing. I cannot say that for a certain site, which charges $10 per
month for Premium Membership.
You've reminded me of how the totally neocon and cuckservative National Review now rigorously–with all the fanaticism of the Stasi–polices
its comments section. It's unreal.
Money quote: " neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at large, and to
make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were under
feudalism."
Notable quotes:
"... ... if you take the Bible literally, it's the fight in almost all of the early books of the Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, all about the fight over indebtedness and debt cancellation. ..."
"... neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at large,and to make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were under feudalism. ..."
"... They call themselves free marketers, but they realize that you cannot have neoliberalism unless you're willing to murder and assassinate everyone who promotes an alternative ..."
"... Just so long as you remember that most of the strongest and most moving condemnations of greed and money in the ancient and (today) western world are also Jewish--i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, the Gospels, Letter of James, etc. ..."
"... The history of Jewish banking after the fall or Rome is inextricable from cultural anti-judaism of Christian west and east and de facto marginalization/ghettoization of Jews from most aspects of social life. The Jewish lending of money on interest to gentiles was both necessary for early mercantilist trade and yet usury was prohibited by the church. So Jewish money lenders were essential to and yet ostracized within European economies for centuries. ..."
"... Now Christianity has itself long given up on the tradition teaching against usury of course. ..."
"... In John, for instance most of the references to what in English is translated as "the Jews" are in Greek clearly references to "the Judaeans"--and especially to the ruling elite among the southern tribe in bed with the Romans. ..."
Just finished reading the fascinating
Michael Hudson interview I linked to on previous thread; but since we're discussing Jews
and their religion in a tangential manner, I think it appropriate to post here since the
history Hudson explains is 100% key to the ongoing pain us humans feel and inflict. My
apologies in advance, but it will take this long excerpt to explain what I mean:
"Tribes: When does the concept of a general debt cancellation disappear historically?
"Michael: I guess in about the second or third century AD it was downplayed in the Bible.
After Jesus died, you had, first of all, St Paul taking over, and basically Christianity was
created by one of the most evil men in history, the anti-Semite Cyril of Alexandria. He
gained power by murdering his rivals, the Nestorians, by convening a congress of bishops and
killing his enemies. Cyril was really the Stalin figure of Christianity, killing everybody
who was an enemy, organizing pogroms against the Jews in Alexandria where he ruled.
"It was Cyril that really introduced into Christianity the idea of the Trinity. That's
what the whole fight was about in the third and fourth centuries AD. Was Jesus a human, was
he a god? And essentially you had the Isis-Osiris figure from Egypt, put into Christianity.
The Christians were still trying to drive the Jews out of Christianity. And Cyril knew the
one thing the Jewish population was not going to accept would be the Isis figure and the
Mariolatry that the church became. And as soon as the Christian church became the
establishment rulership church, the last thing it wanted in the West was debt
cancellation.
"You had a continuation of the original Christianity in the Greek Orthodox Church, or the
Orthodox Church, all the way through Byzantium. And in my book And Forgive Them Their Debts,
the last two chapters are on the Byzantine echo of the original debt cancellations, where one
ruler after another would cancel the debts. And they gave very explicit reason for it: if we
don't cancel the debts, we're not going to be able to field an army, we're not going to be
able to collect taxes, because the oligarchy is going to take over. They were very explicit,
with references to the Bible, references to the jubilee year. So you had Christianity survive
in the Byzantine Empire. But in the West it ended in Margaret Thatcher. And Father
Coughlin.
"Tribes: He was the '30s figure here in the States.
"Michael: Yes: anti-Semite, right-wing, pro-war, anti-labor. So the irony is that you have
the people who call themselves fundamentalist Christians being against everything that Jesus
was fighting for, and everything that original Christianity was all about."
Hudson says debt forgiveness was one of the central tenets of Judaism: " ... if
you take the Bible literally, it's the fight in almost all of the early books of the Old
Testament, the Jewish Bible, all about the fight over indebtedness and debt
cancellation. "
Looks like I'll be purchasing Hudson's book as he's essentially unveiling a whole new,
potentially revolutionary, historical interpretation.
@ karlof1 with the Michale Hudson link....thanks!!
Here is the quote that I really like from that interview
"
Michael: No. You asked what is the fight about? The fight is whether the state will be taken
over, essentially to be an extension of Wall Street if you do not have government planning.
Every economy is planned. Ever since the Neolithic (era), you've had to have (a form of)
planning. If you don't have a public authority doing the planning, then the financial
authority becomes the planners. So globalism is in the financial interest –Wall Street
and the City of London, doing the planning, not governments. They will do the planning in
their own interest. So neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at
large,and to make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were
under feudalism.
"
karlof1, please email me as I would like to read the book as well and maybe we can share a
copy.
And yes, it is relevant to Netanyahoo and his ongoing passel of lies because humanity has
been told and been living these lives for centuries...it is time to stop this shit and grow
up/evolve
@13 / 78 karlof1... thanks very much for the links to michael hudson, alastair crooke and the
bruno maraces articles...
they were all good for different reasons, but although hudson is being criticized for
glossing over some of his talking points, i think the main thrust of his article is very
worthwhile for others to read! the quote to end his article is quite good "The question is,
who do you want to run the economy? The 1% and the financial sector, or the 99% through
politics? The fight has to be in the political sphere, because there's no other sphere that
the financial interests cannot crush you on."
it seems to me that the usa has worked hard to bad mouth or get rid of government and the
concept of government being involved in anything.. of course everything has to be run by a
'private corp' - ie corporations must run everything.. they call them oligarchs when talking
about russia, lol - but they are corporations when they are in the usa.. slight rant..
another quote i especially liked from hudson.. " They call themselves free marketers,
but they realize that you cannot have neoliberalism unless you're willing to murder and
assassinate everyone who promotes an alternative ." that sounds about right...
@ 84 juliania.. aside from your comments on hudsons characterization of st paul "the
anti-Semite Cyril of Alexandria" further down hudson basically does the same with father
coughlin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin..
he gets the anti-semite tag as well.. i don't know much about either characters, so it's
mostly greek to me, but i do find some of hudsons views especially appealing - debt
forgiveness being central to the whole article as i read it...
it is interesting my own view on how money is so central to the world and how often times
I am incapable of avoiding the observation of the disproportionate number of Jewish people in
banking.. I guess that makes me anti-semite too, but i don't think of myself that way.. I
think the obsession with money is killing the planet.. I don't care who is responsible for
keeping it going, it is killing us...
Just so long as you remember that most of the strongest and most moving condemnations
of greed and money in the ancient and (today) western world are also Jewish--i.e. Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Micah, the Gospels, Letter of James, etc.
The history of Jewish banking after the fall or Rome is inextricable from cultural
anti-judaism of Christian west and east and de facto marginalization/ghettoization of Jews from
most aspects of social life. The Jewish lending of money on interest to gentiles was both
necessary for early mercantilist trade and yet usury was prohibited by the church. So Jewish
money lenders were essential to and yet ostracized within European economies for
centuries.
Now Christianity has itself long given up on the tradition teaching against usury of
course.
I too greatly admire the work of Hudson but he consistently errs and oversimplifies
whenever discussing the beliefs of and the development of beliefs among preNicene followers
of the way (as Acts puts is) or Christians (as they came to be known in Antioch within
roughly eight or nine decades after Jesus' death.) Palestinian Judaism in the time of Jesus
was much more variegated than scholars even twenty years ago had recognized. The gradual
reception and interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in tandem with renewed research into
Phili of Alexandria, the Essenes, the so-called Sons of Zadok, contemporary Galilean zealot
movements styles after the earlier Maccabean resistance, the apocalyptism of post exilic
texts like Daniel and (presumably) parts of Enoch--all paint a picture of a highly diverse
group of alternatives to the state-Church once known as Second Temple Judaism that has been
mistaken as undisputed Jewish "orthodoxy" since the advent of historical criticism.
The
Gospel of John, for example, which dates from betweeen 80-120 and is the record of a much
earlier oral tradition, is already explicitly binitarian, and possibly already trinitarian
depending on how one understands the relationship between the Spirit or Advocate and the Son.
(Most ante-Nicene Christians understood the Spirit to be *Christ's* own spirit in distributed
form, and they did so by appeal to a well-developed but still largely under recognized strand
in Jewish angelology.)
The "theological" development of Christianity occurred much sooner
that it has been thought because it emerged from an already highly theologized strand or
strands of Jewish teaching that, like Christianity itself, privileged the Abrahamic covenant
over the Mosaic Law, the testament of grace over that of works, and the universal scope of
revelation and salvation as opposed to any political or ethnic reading of the "Kingdom."
None
of these groups were part of the ruling class of Judaean priests and levites and their
hangers on the Pharisees.
In John, for instance most of the references to what in English is
translated as "the Jews" are in Greek clearly references to "the Judaeans"--and especially to
the ruling elite among the southern tribe in bed with the Romans.
So the anti-Judaism/Semiti
of John's Gispel largely rests on a mistranslation. In any event, everything is much more
complex than Hudson makes it out to be. Christian economic radicalism is alive and well in
the thought of Gregory of Nysa and Basil the Great, who also happened to be Cappadocian
fathers highly influential in the development of "orthodox" Trinitarianism in the fourth
century.
I still think that Hudson's big picture critique of the direction later Christianity
took is helpful and necessary, but this doesn't change the fact that he simplifies the
origins, development, and arguably devolution of this movement whenever he tries to get
specific. It is a worthwhile danger given the quality of his work in historical economics,
but still one has to be aware of.
The reception of God's mercy in dependent upon a person's acknowledgement of his sins,
Pope Francis said Wednesday, because "the proud person is unable to receive
forgiveness."
"What can the Lord give to those whose hearts are full of themselves and their own success?"
the Pope asked the thousands of pilgrims gathered in the Vatican for his General
Audience . "Nothing, because the presumptuous person is unable to receive forgiveness,
since he is full of his supposed justice."
The Pope called to mind Jesus's parable of the Pharisee and the
publican, where only the publican, or tax collector, receives forgiveness for his sins and
returns home justified.
"Those who are aware of their own miseries and lower their eyes with humility, feel the
merciful gaze of God resting on them," Francis said. "We know from experience that only those
who can acknowledge their faults and ask forgiveness receive the understanding and pardon of
others."
In his catechesis, Pope Francis has been reflecting on the different parts of the
celebration of the Eucharist, and on Wednesday considered the penitential act, when Catholic
examine their consciences and ask for God's mercy.
This act favors the correct attitude to worthily celebrate the holy mysteries, he said, by
"recognizing our sins before God and our brothers, recognizing that we are sinners."
At the beginning of Mass, "everyone confesses to God and to his brothers and sisters 'to
have greatly sinned in thoughts, words, deeds and omissions,'" Francis said.
Omissions matter too, the Pope insisted, by neglecting to do the good we could do. "We often
feel good because we say 'I didn't hurt anyone,'" he said. "In reality, it is not enough not to
harm others; it is necessary to choose to do good by seizing the opportunities to give good
testimony that we are disciples of Jesus."
A public confession that we are sinners before God and our brethren "helps us understand the
dimension of sin that, while it separates us from God, also divides us from our brothers and
sisters, and vice versa," he said.
Out of fear or shame, we often point our finger to accuse others, Francis continued. "It's
hard to admit to being guilty, but it is good to confess it with sincerity."
The Pope also held up biblical examples of penitence that are models for today's
Christians.
He mentioned King David, with his Psalms of repentance after his great sins, as well as the
parable of the Prodigal Son and the petition of tax payer: "O God, be merciful to me, a
sinner."
He went on to speak of other biblical penitents, such as St. Peter, Zaccheus and the
Samaritan woman, suggesting that acknowledging our personal weakness and sins strengthens us
while disposing us to receive God's mercy and forgiveness.
Pope Francis has made the gospel message of mercy and forgiveness a central point of his
pontificate, and declared
the year 2016 to be a Holy Year of Mercy.
CHAPTER TWO: AMID THE CRISIS
OF COMMUNAL COMMITMENT
50. Before taking up some basic questions related to the work of evangelization, it may be
helpful to mention briefly the context in which we all have to live and work. Today, we
frequently hear of a "diagnostic overload" which is not always accompanied by improved and
actually applicable methods of treatment. Nor would we be well served by a purely sociological
analysis which would aim to embrace all of reality by employing an allegedly neutral and
clinical method. What I would like to propose is something much more in the line of an
evangelical discernment. It is the approach of a missionary disciple, an approach "nourished by
the light and strength of the Holy Spirit".
[53]
51. It is not the task of the Pope to offer a detailed and complete analysis of contemporary
reality, but I do exhort all the communities to an "ever watchful scrutiny of the signs of the
times".
[54] This is in fact a grave responsibility, since certain present realities, unless
effectively dealt with, are capable of setting off processes of dehumanization which would then
be hard to reverse. We need to distinguish clearly what might be a fruit of the kingdom from
what runs counter to God's plan. This involves not only recognizing and discerning spirits, but
also – and this is decisive – choosing movements of the spirit of good and
rejecting those of the spirit of evil. I take for granted the different analyses which other
documents of the universal magisterium have offered, as well as those proposed by the regional
and national conferences of bishops. In this Exhortation I claim only to consider briefly, and
from a pastoral perspective, certain factors which can restrain or weaken the impulse of
missionary renewal in the Church, either because they threaten the life and dignity of God's
people or because they affect those who are directly involved in the Church's institutions and
in her work of evangelization.
52. In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history, as we can see from
the advances being made in so many fields. We can only praise the steps being taken to improve
people's welfare in areas such as health care, education and communications. At the same time
we have to remember that the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day,
with dire consequences. A number of diseases are spreading. The hearts of many people are
gripped by fear and desperation, even in the so-called rich countries. The joy of living
frequently fades, lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is
increasingly evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little
dignity. This epochal change has been set in motion by the enormous qualitative, quantitative,
rapid and cumulative advances occuring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant
application in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge and
information, which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power.
53. Just as the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" sets a clear limit in order to safeguard
the value of human life, today we also have to say "thou shalt not" to an economy of exclusion
and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly
homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This
is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are
starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition
and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence,
masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without
possibilities, without any means of escape.
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have
created a "throw away" culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about
exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it
means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society's
underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it.
The excluded are not the "exploited" but the outcast, the "leftovers".
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that
economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater
justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the
facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power
and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are
still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that
selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it,
we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other
people's pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else's
responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the
market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of
opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly
accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us
overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of
the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf.
Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the
dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis
affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real
concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.
56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating
the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of
ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation.
Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to
exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which
unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of
interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies
and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread
corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst
for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything
which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is
defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.
57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come
to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human,
because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the
manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a
committed response which is outside the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are
absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he
calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement.
Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance
and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political
leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: "Not to share one's wealth with
the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which
we hold, but theirs".
[55]
58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change
of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with
determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each
case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is
obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the
poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an
ethical approach which favours human beings.
59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and
inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate
violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal
opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for
growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global –
is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent
on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not
the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the
system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to
spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and
quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If
every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a
constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social
structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the
so-called "end of history", since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development
have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.
60. Today's economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that
unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric.
Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able
to resolve. It serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security,
even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create
new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the
poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they
claim that the solution is an "education" that would tranquilize them, making them tame and
harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the
widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments,
businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.
61. We also evangelize when we attempt to confront the various challenges which can arise.
[56] On occasion these may take the form of veritable attacks on religious freedom or new
persecutions directed against Christians; in some countries these have reached alarming levels
of hatred and violence. In many places, the problem is more that of widespread indifference and
relativism, linked to disillusionment and the crisis of ideologies which has come about as a
reaction to any-thing which might appear totalitarian. This not only harms the Church but the
fabric of society as a whole. We should recognize how in a culture where each person wants to
be bearer of his or her own subjective truth, it becomes difficult for citizens to devise a
common plan which transcends individual gain and personal ambitions.
62. In the prevailing culture, priority is given to the outward, the immediate, the visible,
the quick, the superficial and the provisional. What is real gives way to appearances. In many
countries globalization has meant a hastened deterioration of their own cultural roots and the
invasion of ways of thinking and acting proper to other cultures which are economically
advanced but ethically debilitated. This fact has been brought up by bishops from various
continents in different Synods. The African bishops, for example, taking up the Encyclical
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis , pointed out years ago that there have been frequent attempts
to make the African countries "parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel. This is often true
also in the field of social communications which, being run by centres mostly in the northern
hemisphere, do not always give due consideration to the priorities and problems of such
countries or respect their cultural make-up".
[57] By the same token, the bishops of Asia "underlined the external influences being
brought to bear on Asian cultures. New patterns of behaviour are emerging as a result of
over-exposure to the mass media As a result, the negative aspects of the media and
entertainment industries are threatening traditional values, and in particular the sacredness
of marriage and the stability of the family".
[58]
63. The Catholic faith of many peoples is nowadays being challenged by the proliferation of
new religious movements, some of which tend to fundamentalism while others seem to propose a
spirituality without God. This is, on the one hand, a human reaction to a materialistic,
consumerist and individualistic society, but it is also a means of exploiting the weaknesses of
people living in poverty and on the fringes of society, people who make ends meet amid great
human suffering and are looking for immediate solutions to their needs. These religious
movements, not without a certain shrewdness, come to fill, within a predominantly
individualistic culture, a vacuum left by secularist rationalism. We must recognize that if
part of our baptized people lack a sense of belonging to the Church, this is also due to
certain structures and the occasionally unwelcoming atmosphere of some of our parishes and
communities, or to a bureaucratic way of dealing with problems, be they simple or complex, in
the lives of our people. In many places an administrative approach prevails over a pastoral
approach, as does a concentration on administering the sacraments apart from other forms of
evangelization.
64. The process of secularization tends to reduce the faith and the Church to the sphere of
the private and personal. Furthermore, by completely rejecting the transcendent, it has
produced a growing deterioration of ethics, a weakening of the sense of personal and collective
sin, and a steady increase in relativism. These have led to a general sense of disorientation,
especially in the periods of adolescence and young adulthood which are so vulnerable to change.
As the bishops of the United States of America have rightly pointed out, while the Church
insists on the existence of objective moral norms which are valid for everyone, "there are
those in our culture who portray this teaching as unjust, that is, as opposed to basic human
rights. Such claims usually follow from a form of moral relativism that is joined, not without
inconsistency, to a belief in the absolute rights of individuals. In this view, the Church is
perceived as promoting a particular prejudice and as interfering with individual freedom".
[59] We are living in an information-driven society which bombards us indiscriminately with
data – all treated as being of equal importance – and which leads to remarkable
superficiality in the area of moral discernment. In response, we need to provide an education
which teaches critical thinking and encourages the development of mature moral values.
65. Despite the tide of secularism which has swept our societies, in many countries –
even those where Christians are a minority – the Catholic Church is considered a credible
institution by public opinion, and trusted for her solidarity and concern for those in greatest
need. Again and again, the Church has acted as a mediator in finding solutions to problems
affecting peace, social harmony, the land, the defence of life, human and civil rights, and so
forth. And how much good has been done by Catholic schools and universities around the world!
This is a good thing. Yet, we find it difficult to make people see that when we raise other
questions less palatable to public opinion, we are doing so out of fidelity to precisely the
same convictions about human dignity and the common good.
66. The family is experiencing a profound cultural crisis, as are all communities and social
bonds. In the case of the family, the weakening of these bonds is particularly serious because
the family is the fundamental cell of society, where we learn to live with others despite our
differences and to belong to one another; it is also the place where parents pass on the faith
to their children. Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form of mere emotional satisfaction
that can be constructed in any way or modified at will. But the indispensible contribution of
marriage to society transcends the feelings and momentary needs of the couple. As the French
bishops have taught, it is not born "of loving sentiment, ephemeral by definition, but from the
depth of the obligation assumed by the spouses who accept to enter a total communion of life".
[60]
67. The individualism of our postmodern and globalized era favours a lifestyle which weakens
the development and stability of personal relationships and distorts family bonds. Pastoral
activity needs to bring out more clearly the fact that our relationship with the Father demands
and encourages a communion which heals, promotes and reinforces interpersonal bonds. In our
world, especially in some countries, different forms of war and conflict are re-emerging, yet
we Christians remain steadfast in our intention to respect others, to heal wounds, to build
bridges, to strengthen relationships and to "bear one another's burdens" ( Gal 6:2).
Today too, various associations for the defence of rights and the pursuit of noble goals are
being founded. This is a sign of the desire of many people to contribute to social and cultural
progress.
This "apostolic exhortation" is probably the most sharp critique of neoliberalism by a church leader.
Notable quotes:
"... "In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world," the pope wrote. "This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting." ..."
"... In his exhortation, the pope also attacked economic inequality, suggesting Christians have a duty to combat it to comply with the Ten Commandments -- specifically the prohibition on killing. ..."
Pope Francis delivers a speech March 15, 2013, during a meeting of the world's cardinals. (Osservatore Romano/EPA)
Pope Francis has released a sharply worded take on capitalism and the world's treatment of its poor, criticizing "trickle-down"
economic policies in no uncertain terms.
In the
first lengthy writing of his papacy -- also known as an "apostolic exhortation" -- Francis says such economic theories naively
rely on the goodness of those in charge and create a "tyranny" of the markets.
"In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a
free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world," the pope wrote. "This opinion,
which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and
in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."
While popes have often warned against the negative impact of the markets, Francis's verbiage is note-worthy because of its use
of the phrase "trickle-down" -- a term that came into popular usage as a description for former president Ronald Reagan's economic
policies. While the term is often used pejoratively, it describes an economic theory that remains popular with conservatives in the
United States today.
The theory holds that policies benefiting the wealthiest segment of society will also help the poor, by allowing money to "trickle
down" from the top income levels into the lower ones. Critics, including President Obama, say the policies, usually focused on tax
cuts and credits that primarily benefit upper-income Americans, concentrate wealth in the highest income levels and that the benefits
rarely trickle down to the extent proponents suggest.
In his exhortation, the pope also attacked economic inequality, suggesting Christians have a duty to combat it to comply with
the Ten Commandments -- specifically the prohibition on killing.
"Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also
have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality," the pope wrote. "Such an economy kills."
"We have created new idols," Francis wrote. "The worship of the ancient golden calf ... has returned in a new and ruthless guise
in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose."
The pope also attacks "consumerism": "It is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging
to the social fabric."
Here is the entire passage:
I. SOME CHALLENGES OF TODAY'S WORLD
52. In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history, as we can see from the advances being made in so many
fields. We can only praise the steps being taken to improve people's welfare in areas such as health care, education and communications.
At the same time we have to remember that the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day, with dire consequences.
A number of diseases are spreading. The hearts of many people are gripped by fear and desperation, even in the so-called rich
countries. The joy of living frequently fades, lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is increasingly
evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little dignity. This epochal change has been set in motion
by the enormous qualitative, quantitative, rapid and cumulative advances occuring in the sciences and in technology, and by their
instant application in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge and information, which has led to
new and often anonymous kinds of power.
No to an economy of exclusion
53. Just as the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we
also have to say "thou shalt not" to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not
a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a
case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality.
Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless.
As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any
means of escape.
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a "disposable" culture
which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has
to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society's underside or its
fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the "exploited" but the outcast, the
"leftovers".
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by
a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has
never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the
sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which
excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without
being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people's pain,
and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else's responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity
deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for
lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
No to the new idolatry of money
55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves
and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the
denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35)
has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly
human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of
real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.
56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity
enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and
financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise
any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its
own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their
own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving
tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which
tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless
before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.
No to a financial system which rules rather than serves
57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful
derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since
it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response
which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable,
unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement.
Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in
mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: "Not to share
one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but
theirs".
[55]
58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political
leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics
of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ
to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics
and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.
No to the inequality which spawns violence
59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples
is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without
equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode.
When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes
or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply
because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust
at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence
and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences,
an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized
in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called "end of history",
since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.
60. Today's economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with
inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot
and never will be able to resolve. This serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though
nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply
content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations,
they claim that the solution is an "education" that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even
more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in
their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.
Should probably be "neoliberal religion has de-legitimized itself with its hypocrisy
Notable quotes:
"... Sorry, as a church-attending person, I object. Religion has de-legitimized itself with its hypocrisy. One example: Jerry Falwell, a "battler" against abortion actually supported it before his plutocratic masters told him it was a wedge issue. ..."
"... Michael Hudso says Jesus' first appearance in the Jerusalem temple was to announce just such a Jubilee Boy is that ever ignored! ..."
"... Your correlating the hypocritical actions of the leadership with the ideals of a religion. Corrupt leadership may delegitimize those individuals but does not delegitimize the ideals of the religion. Is the ideal of America totally dependent on the actions of its political leadership? Personally, I think there is far more to America than just the president and congress whether corrupt or not. ..."
"... What is or are the ideal(s) of "America?" Get rich quick, violence on all fronts, anti-intellectualism, imperial project across the planet? "Democracy?" If you trot that out as a "feature", you better explain what you mean, with some specificity. More to America? If youtube is any guide, try searching it for "syria combat" or "redneck" or "full auto," or all the really sick racist and extreme stuff - a pretty sorry place. But we all recite the Pledge so dutifully, don't we? and feel a thrill as the F-22s swoop over the football stadium? ..."
Sorry, as a church-attending person, I object. Religion has de-legitimized itself with its hypocrisy. One example: Jerry
Falwell, a "battler" against abortion actually supported it before his plutocratic masters told him it was a wedge issue.
Positions on the wedge issues (abortion, the gays) are actually difficult to prove with scripture–not that it has the
kind of authority it did before 35,000 variations on old manuscripts were discovered in the 17th century. (Marcus Borg is the
scholar to consult here).
Meanwhile, the big issues - e.g. covetousness, forbidden very explicitly in one of the 10 commandments - is an *industry* in
the U.S.
I'll believe these evangelicals are guided by the bible when I see them picketing Madison Avenue for promoting covetousness,
or when I see them lobbying for a debt jubilee.
Michael Hudso says Jesus' first appearance in the Jerusalem temple was to announce just such a Jubilee Boy is that ever ignored!
Your correlating the hypocritical actions of the leadership with the ideals of a religion. Corrupt leadership may delegitimize
those individuals but does not delegitimize the ideals of the religion. Is the ideal of America totally dependent on the actions
of its political leadership? Personally, I think there is far more to America than just the president and congress whether corrupt
or not.
Ideals only serve in practice to create primordial debts, buttress power differentials, and enable selective malfeasance. I
fail to see the social utility of any of those products and believe humanity would be better off repudiating them and their vectors.
Disease is not a public good.
Well I am using this definition of ideal: "a person or thing conceived as embodying such a conception or conforming to such
a standard, and taken as a model for imitation". I guess you are welcome to your definition.
I think "America" is maybe a shibboleth of some sort, but there is not a dam' thing left of the stuff I was taught and brought
to believe, as a young person, Boy Scout, attendee at the Presbyterian Westminster Fellowship, attentive student of Mrs. Thompson
and Mr. Fleming in Civics, Social Studies and US History classes, and all that. I was well enough steeped in that stuff to let
"patriotism" overcome better sense, strongly enough to enlist in the Army in 1966.
Maybe you think "The Birth of a Nation" captures the essence of our great country?
What is or are the ideal(s) of "America?" Get rich quick, violence on all fronts, anti-intellectualism, imperial project
across the planet? "Democracy?" If you trot that out as a "feature", you better explain what you mean, with some specificity.
More to America? If youtube is any guide, try searching it for "syria combat" or "redneck" or "full auto," or all the really sick
racist and extreme stuff - a pretty sorry place. But we all recite the Pledge so dutifully, don't we? and feel a thrill as the
F-22s swoop over the football stadium?
"... For him, the Soviet Union was once a stable, entrenched, conservative state and the majority of Russian people -- actually myself included -- thought it would last forever. But the way people employ language and read ideologies can change. That change can be undetectable at first, and then unstoppable. ..."
" In America there was once a popular but simplistic image of the Soviet Russia as the Evil
Empire destined to fall, precisely because it was unfree and therefore evil. Ronald Reagan who
advocated it also once said that the Russian people do not have a word for "freedom". Not so fast
-- says Alexei Yurchak. He was born in the Soviet Union and became a cultural anthropologist in
California. He employs linguistic structural analysis in very interesting ways. For him, the
Soviet Union was once a stable, entrenched, conservative state and the majority of Russian people
-- actually myself included -- thought it would last forever. But the way people employ language
and read ideologies can change. That change can be undetectable at first, and then unstoppable.
Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare its
own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative discourse
by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system and the master
signifiers with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together. According to Yurchak
"In its first three or four years, perestroika was not much more than a deconstruction of Soviet
authoritative discourse". This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet
Union shared more features with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to
admit.
The demise of the Soviet Union was not caused by anti-modernity or backwardness of Russian
people. The Soviet experiment was a cousin of Western modernity and shared many features with
the Western democracies, in particular its roots in the Enlightenment project. The Soviet Union
wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent. The Soviet system, despite
its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral and ethical aspects to Soviet
socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by the state, they were still very
important to people themselves in their lives. These values were: solidarity, community, altruism,
education, creativity, friendship and safety. Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western
values" such as the rule of law and freedom, but for Russians they were the most important. For
many "socialism" was a system of human values and everyday realities which wasn't necessarily
equivalent of the official interpretation provided by the state rhetoric.
Yurchak starts with a general paradox within the ideology of modernity: the split between ideological
enunciation, which reflects the theoretical ideals of the Enlightenment, and ideological rule,
which are the practical concerns of the modern state's political authority. In Soviet Union the
paradox was "solved" by means of dogmatic political closure and elevation of Master signifier
[Lenin, Stalin, Party] but it doesn't mean the Western democracies are immune to totalitarian
temptation to which the Soviet Union had succumbed. The vast governmental bureaucracy and Quango-state
are waiting in the shadows here as well, may be ready to appropriate discourse.
It is hard to agree with everything in his book. But it is an interesting perspective. I wish
Alexei Yurchak would explore more implications of Roman Jacobson's "poetic function of language"
and its connection to Russian experiment in communism. It seems to me, as a Russian native speaker,
that Russians put stress on form, sound, and poetics. The English-language tradition prioritizes
content and meaning. Can we speak of "Hermeneutics" of the West versus "Poetics" of Russia? Perhaps
the tragedy of Russia was under-development of Hermeneutics? How does one explain the feeble attempts
to throw a light of reason into the loopy texts and theories of Marks, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin?
Perhaps the Russians read it as a kind of magical text, a poetry, a bad poetry -- not Pasternak
or Blok -- but kind of poetry nevertheless?
Just loved this -- a brilliant study of how everyday citizens (as opposed to active supporters
or dissidents) cope with living in a decadent dictatorship, through strategies of ignoring the
powerful, focusing on hyperlocal socialities, treating ritualized support for the regime as little
more than an annoying chore, and withdrawal into subcultures. Yurchak demolishes the view that
the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were either blind support (though his accounts
of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling) or active resistance, while at the same
time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet socialism (equality, education, friendship,
community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in the population. While his entire account is
a tacit meditation on the manifold unpleasantnesses of living under the Soviet system, Yurchak
also makes clear that it was not all unpleasantness and that indeed for some people (such as theoretical
physicists) life under Soviet socialism was in some ways freer than for their peers in the West.
All of which makes the book function (sotto voce) as an explanation for the nostalgia that many
in Russia today feel for Soviet times - something inexplicable to those who claim that Communism
was simply and nothing but an evil.
The theoretical vehicle for Yurchak's investigation is the divergence between the performative
rather than the constative dimensions of the "authoritative discourse" of the late Soviet regime.
One might say that his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the authorities
was "They pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend to believe them."
Yurchak rightly observes that one can neither interpret the decision to vote in favor of an official
resolution or to display a pro-government slogan at a rally as being an unambiguous statement
of regime support, nor assume that these actions were directly coerced. People were expected to
perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating relationship to the ideological
meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the context, they might reject
a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively subscribing to
a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29)
The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely formalist
incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the 1950s onwards),
Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because of fervent belief,
which in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity and meaning.
Soviet citizens would go to cafes and talk about music and literature, join a rock band or art
collective, take silly jobs that required little effort and thus left room for them to pursue
their "interests." The very drabness of the standardizations of Soviet life therefore created
new sorts of (admittedly constrained) spaces within which people could define themselves and their
(inter)subjective meanings. All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation
of the "totalitarianism" thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the
regime, citizens were continually able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that
transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative discourse.
"... Normalisation is what has historically happened in the wake of financial crises. During the booms that precede busts, low interest rates encourage people to make investments with borrowed money. However, even after all of the prudent investment opportunities have been taken, people continue borrowing to invest in projects and ideas that are unlikely to ever generate profits. ..."
"... Eventually, the precariousness of some of these later investments becomes apparent. Those that arrive at this realization early sell up, settle their debts and pocket profits, but their selling often triggers a rush for the exits that bankrupts companies and individuals and, in many cases, the banks which lent to them. ..."
"... By contrast, the responses of policy-makers to 2008's financial crisis suggest the psychology of hypernormalisation. Quantitative easing (also known as money printing) and interest rate suppression (to zero percent and, in Europe, negative interest rates) are not working and will never result in sustained increases in productivity, income and employment. However, as our leaders are unable to consider alternative policy solutions, they have to pretend that they are working. ..."
"... Statistical chicanery has helped understate unemployment and inflation while global cooperation has served to obscure the currency depreciation and loss of confidence in paper money (as opposed to 'hard money' such as gold and silver) that are to be expected from rampant money printing. ..."
"... The recent fuss over 'fake news' seems intended to remove alternative news and information sources from a population that, alarmingly for those in charge, is both ever-more aware that the system is not working and less and less willing to pretend that it is . Just this month U.S. President Barack Obama signed the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act into law. United States, meet your Ministry of Truth. ..."
"... Great article. I think it does describe the USSA at the present time. Everything works until it doesn't. ..."
"... The funny thing is I had almost identical thoughts just a few days ago. But I was thinking in comparison more of East Germany's last 20 years before they imploded - peacefully, because not a single non-leading-rank person believed any of the official facts anymore (and therefore they even simply ignored orders from high command to crush the Leipzig Monday demonstrations.) ..."
"... I'm ok with a world led by Trump and Putin. ..."
"... I recall the joke from the old Soviet Union: "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." In the USSA these last few years, Barry pretends to tell the truth. Libtards pretend to believe him. ..."
"... Wrong. They believe him. Look at the gaggle of libtard/shiteaters at Soetero's Friday night bash at the White House. ..."
"... Reagan used to quip that in the Soviet Union, the people pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them. We're not the Soviet Union, but we have become a farce. Next stop - the fall. Followed by chaos, then onto something new. The new elites will just be the old elites, well, the ones that escape the noose. ..."
"... The real ugly problem with the Soviet Union is that whatever they broke it into isn't working well either. ..."
"... Russia's problem post collapse was the good ol' USSA and its capitalist, plunderer banking mavens. ..."
"... The only way to normalize banking in a contemporary banking paradigm of QE Infinity & Beyond is to start over again without the bankers & accountants that knowingly bet the ranch for a short term gain at the expense of long term profitability. In Japan an honourable businessman/CEO would suicide for bringing this kind of devastation to the company shareholders. ..."
"... In America they don't give a shit because it is always someone else other than the CEO that takes the fall. ..."
"... This, after I'd point out his evasion and deflection every time I addressed his bias and belief in the MSM propaganda mantras of racism, misogyny, xenophobia - all the usual labeling bullshit up to insinuating Russia hacked the election ..."
"... I've been using the term Hypernormalisation to describe aspects of western society for the last 15 years, before Adam Curtis's brilliant BBC documentary Hypernormalisation , afflicting western society and particularly politics. There are lies and gross distortions everywhere in western society and it straddles/effects all races, colours, social classes and the disease is most acute in our politics. ..."
"... We all know the hypernoprmalisation in politics, as we witness stories everyday on Zerohedge of the disconnect from reality ..."
"... It is called COGNITIVE DISSONANCE .. ..."
"... "When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit with the core belief." ..."
"... During their final days as a world power, the Soviet Union allowed cognitive dissonance to rule its better judgment as so many Americans are doing in 2012. The handwriting on the wall was pretty clear for Gorbachev. The Soviet economy was failing. They did none of the necessary things to save their economy. In 2012, the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear for the American people. The economy is failing. The people and the Congress do none of the necessary things to save their economy. Why? Go re-read the definition of cognitive dissonance. That's why. We have a classic fight going on between those who want government to take care of them who will pay the price of lost freedom to get that care, and those who value freedom above all else. ..."
"... to me the PTB are "Japanifying" the u.s. (decades of no growth, near total demoralization of a generation of worker bees (as in, 'things will never get any better, be glad for what little you've got' etc... look what they've done to u.s. millenials just since '08... fooled (crushed) them TWICE already) ..."
"... But the PTB Plan B is to emulate the USSR with a crackup, replete with fire sale to oligarchs of public assets. ..."
The term comes from Alexei Yurchak's 2006 book Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The
Last Soviet Generation. The book argues that over the last 20 years of the Soviet Union, everyone
knew the system wasn't working, but as no one could imagine any alternative, politicians and citizens
were resigned to pretending that it was. Eventually this pretending was accepted as normal and the
fake reality thus created was accepted as real, an effect which Yurchak termed "hypernormalisation."
Looking at events over the past few years, one wonders if our own society is experiencing the
same phenomenon. A contrast with what economic policy-makers term "normalisation" is instructive.
Normalisation is what has historically happened in the wake of financial crises. During the
booms that precede busts, low interest rates encourage people to make investments with borrowed money.
However, even after all of the prudent investment opportunities have been taken, people continue
borrowing to invest in projects and ideas that are unlikely to ever generate profits.
Eventually, the precariousness of some of these later investments becomes apparent. Those
that arrive at this realization early sell up, settle their debts and pocket profits, but their selling
often triggers a rush for the exits that bankrupts companies and individuals and, in many cases,
the banks which lent to them.
In the normalisation which follows (usually held during 'special' bank holidays) auditors and
accountants go through financial records and decide which companies and individuals are insolvent
(and should therefore go bankrupt) and which are merely illiquid (and therefore eligible for additional
loans, pledged against good collateral). In a similar fashion, central bank officials decide which
banks are to close and which are to remain open. Lenders made freshly aware of bankruptcy risk raise
(or normalise) interest rates and in so doing complete the process of clearing bad debt out of the
system. Overall, reality replaces wishful thinking.
While this process is by no means pleasant for the people involved, from a societal standpoint
bankruptcy and higher interest rates are necessary to keep businesses focused on profitable investment,
banks focused on prudent lending and overall debt levels manageable.
By contrast, the responses of policy-makers to 2008's financial crisis suggest the psychology
of hypernormalisation. Quantitative easing (also known as money printing) and interest rate suppression
(to zero percent and, in Europe, negative interest rates) are not working and will never result in
sustained increases in productivity, income and employment. However, as our leaders are unable to
consider alternative policy solutions, they have to pretend that they are working.
To understand why our leaders are unable to consider alternative policy solutions such as interest
rate normalization and banking reform one only needs to understand that while such policies would
lay the groundwork for a sustained recovery, they would also expose many of the world's biggest banks
as insolvent. As the financial sector is a powerful constituency (and a generous donor to political
campaigns) the banks get the free money they need, even if such policies harm society as a whole.
As we live in a democratic society, it is necessary for our leaders to convince us that there
are no other solutions and that the monetary policy fixes of the past 8 years have been effective
and have done no harm.
Statistical chicanery has helped understate unemployment and inflation while global cooperation
has served to obscure the currency depreciation and loss of confidence in paper money (as opposed
to 'hard money' such as gold and silver) that are to be expected from rampant money printing.
Looking at unemployment figures first, while the unemployment rate is currently very low, the
number of Americans of working age not in the labour force is currently at an all-time high of over
95 million people. Discouraged workers who stop looking for work are no longer classified as unemployed
but instead become economically inactive, but clearly many of these people really should be counted
as unemployed. Similarly, while government statistical agencies record inflation rates of between
one and two percent, measures that use methodologies used in the past (such as John Williams' Shadowstats
measures) show consumer prices rising at annual rates of 6 to 8 percent. In addition, many people
have noticed what has been termed 'shrinkflation', where prices remain the same even as package sizes
shrink. A common example is bacon, which used to be sold by the pound but which is now commonly sold
in 12 ounce slabs.
Meanwhile central banks have coordinated their money printing to ensure that no major currency
(the dollar, the yen, the euro or the Chinese renminbi) depreciates noticeably against the others
for a sustained period of time. Further, since gold hit a peak of over $1900 per ounce in 2011, central
banks have worked hard to keep the gold price suppressed through the futures market. On more than
a few occasions, contracts for many months worth of global gold production have been sold in a matter
of a few minutes, with predictable consequences for the gold price. At all costs, people's confidence
in and acceptance of the paper (or, more commonly, electronic) money issued by central banks must
be maintained.
Despite these efforts people nonetheless sense that something is wrong. The Brexit vote and the
election of Donald Trump to the White House represent to a large degree a rejection of the fake reality
propagated by the policymaking elite. Increasingly, people recognize that a financial system dependent
upon zero percent interest rates is not sustainable and are responding by taking their money out
of the banks in favour of holding cash or other forms of wealth. In the face of such understanding
and resistance, governments are showing themselves willing to use coercion to enforce acceptance
of their fake reality.
The recent fuss over 'fake news' seems intended to remove alternative news and information
sources from a population that, alarmingly for those in charge, is both ever-more aware that the
system is not working and less and less willing to pretend that it is . Just this month U.S. President
Barack Obama signed the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act into law. United States, meet
your Ministry of Truth.
Meanwhile, in India last month, people were told that the highest denomination bills in common
circulation would be 'demonetized' or made worthless as of December 30th. People were allowed to
deposit or exchange a certain quantity of the demonetized bills in banks but many people who had
accumulated their savings in rupee notes (often the poor who did not have bank accounts) have been
ruined. Ostensibly, this demonetization policy was aimed at curbing corruption and terrorism, but
it is fairly obvious that its real objective was to force people into the banking system and electronic
money. Unsurprisingly, the demonetization drive was accompanied by limits on the quantity of gold
people are allowed to hold.
Despite such attempts to influence our thinking and our behaviour, we don't need to resign ourselves
to pretending that our system is working when it so clearly isn't. Looking at the eventual fate of
the Soviet Union, it should be clear that the sooner we abandon the drift towards hypernormalisation
and start on the path to normalisation the better off we will be.
Correct. I seen with sufficient level of comprehending consciousness the last 5 years of it
- copy-cat perfection with the current times in US(S)A, terrifying how similar the times are as
it is a clear indication of the times to come.
The funny thing is I had almost identical thoughts just a few days ago. But I was thinking
in comparison more of East Germany's last 20 years before they imploded - peacefully, because
not a single non-leading-rank person believed any of the official facts anymore (and therefore
they even simply ignored orders from high command to crush the Leipzig Monday demonstrations.)
I was just thinking that the whole economic world sees us in a sort of equilibrium at the moment.
There will be some adjustments under Trump, but nothing serious. We shall see ..
Repeat something often enough and it becomes hypernormalised. With that in mind the number
of eyes/minds/hits is all that matters. This has been known and exploited for hundreds of years.
That a handful of individuals can have a monopoly over the single most important aspect of
whether you live or die is the ultimate success of hypernormalisation. CENTRAL BANKING.
Mrs.M is of the last Soviet generation. Her .gov papers say so. There is never
a day when I don't hear something soviet. She still has a her red pioneer ribbon.
I have tried to encourage her to write about it on ZH so that we know. Do you think she
will? No. She's says that we can't understand what it was like no matter what she
says.
Mrs.M was born in 1981 so she has lived an interesting life. I married her in 2004 after
much paperwork and $15000. I wanted that female because we got along quite well. She
is who I needed with me this and I would do it all over again.
Needless to say, I do not support any aggression towards Russia. And to my fellow Americans,
I advise caution because the half you are broke ass fucks and are already ropes with me.
I recall the joke from the old Soviet Union: "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work."
In the USSA these last few years, Barry pretends to tell the truth. Libtards pretend to believe
him.
Geezer, I'd change only one thing... I believe libtards bought Barry's bullshit hook, line
and sinker... it was the rest of us who not-so-subtly were saying WTF!!!
Reagan used to quip that in the Soviet Union, the people pretend to work and the government
pretends to pay them. We're not the Soviet Union, but we have become a farce. Next stop
- the fall. Followed by chaos, then onto something new. The new elites will just be the old elites,
well, the ones that escape the noose.
what noose? you think joe 6p is going to identify the culprits? i think not. "no one saw this
coming!!!" is still ringing in my ears from the last time.
I really don't know how people can keep on getting clicks with this tired crap. It didn't happen
in 2008 just get over it. The delusional people are the people that think the world is going to
end tomorrow.
Maybe the world has ended, for 95 million? I haven't paid a single Fed income tax dollar
in over 8 yrs., for a specific reason, I refuse to support the new normal circus, and quite frankly
I would have gotten out during the GWBush regime, but I couldn't afford to at the time.
The real ugly problem with the Soviet Union is that whatever they broke it into isn't working
well either. Same with the USSA. No one really knows what to do. Feudalism would probably
work, but it is not possible to go back to it. My bet is that we will end up with some form of
socialism, universal income and whatever else, just because there is no good alternative for dealing
with lots and lots of people who are not needed anymore.
Do you mean useless eaters or fuckers deserving the guillotine? Russia's problem post collapse
was the good ol' USSA and its capitalist, plunderer banking mavens.
The Soviet Union pushed its old culture to near destruction but failed to establish a new and
better culture to replace it, writes Angelo M. Codevilla in "The Rise of Political Correctness,"
and as a result the U.S.S.R fell, just as America's current "politically correct" and dysfunctional
"progressive utopia" will implode.
As such, Codevilla would agree that the US population " is both ever-more aware that the system
is not working and less and less willing to pretend that it is."
As for the U.S.S.R., "this step turned out instead to destroy the very basis of Soviet power,"
writes Codevilla. "[C]ontinued efforts to force people to celebrate the party's ersatz reality,
to affirm things that they know are not true and to deny others they know to be true – to live
by lies – requires breaking them , reducing them to a sense of fearful isolation, destroying their
self-esteem and their capacity to trust others. George Orwell's novel 1984 dramatized this culture
war's ends and means : nothing less than the substitution of the party's authority for the reality
conveyed by human senses and reason. Big Brother's agent, having berated the hapless Winston
for preferring his own views to society's dictates, finished breaking his spirit by holding up
four fingers and demanding that Winston acknowledge seeing five.
"Thus did the Soviet regime create dysfunctional, cynical, and resentful subjects. Because
Communism confused destruction of 'bourgeois culture' with cultural conquest, it won all the cultural
battles while losing its culture war long before it collapsed politically. As Communists identified
themselves in people's minds with falsehood and fraud, people came to identify truth with anything
other than the officials and their doctrines. Inevitably, they also identified them with corruption
and privation. A nd so it was that, whenever the authorities announced that the harvest had been
good, the people hoarded potatoes; and that more and more people who knew nothing of Christianity
except that the authorities had anathematized it, started wearing crosses."
And if you want to see the ruling class's culture war in action today in America, pick up the
latest issues of Vogue Magazine or O, The Oprah Magazine with their multitude of role reversals
between whites and minorities. Or check out the latest decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court forcing
people to acknowledge that America is not a Christian nation, or making it "more difficult for
men, women and children to exist as a family" or demanding via law "that their subjects join them
in celebrating the new order that reflects their identity."
As to just how far the ruling class has gone to serve the interests and proclivities of its
leaders and to reject the majority's demand for representation, Codevilla notes, "In 2012 no one
would have thought that defining marriage between one man and one woman, as enshrined in U.S.
law, would brand those who do so as motivated by a culpable psychopathology called 'homophobia,'
subject to fines and near-outlaw status. Not until 2015-16 did it occur to anyone that requiring
persons with male personal plumbing to use public bathrooms reserved for men was a sign of the
same pathology
"On the wholesale level, it is a war on civilization waged to indulge identity politics."
This article is so flawed! People[impoverished] aren't trying to jump over a wall patrolled
by guards into Mexico -YET. Tyler, why do you repost shit like this?
That's because the Yankees, fleeing high taxes, can move to the sunbelt states w/o freezing.
The USA went broke in 2008. Mexico got a head start by 22 years when oil prices collapsed in '86.
The only way to normalize banking in a contemporary banking paradigm of QE Infinity & Beyond
is to start over again without the bankers & accountants that knowingly bet the ranch for a short
term gain at the expense of long term profitability. In Japan an honourable businessman/CEO would
suicide for bringing this kind of devastation to the company shareholders.
In America they don't give a shit because it is always someone else other than the CEO
that takes the fall. 08 was proof that America is not equipped to participate in a Multinational
& Multipolar world of business & investment in business. America can't get along in business in
this world anymore. Greed has rendered America unemployable as a major market participant in a
Globally run network of businesses.
America is the odd man out these days even though the next POTUS promises better management
from a business perspective. Whilst the Mafia Cartel bosses trust TrumpO's business savvy the
rest of the planet Earth does not.
A liberal friend laid this movie on me to show me why he supported Hillary. A smart cookie,
a PHd teaching English in Japan. A Khazarnazi Jew, he even spent time in Kyiv, Ukraine pre-coup,
only mingling with "poets and writers". He went out of his way to tell me how bad the Russians
were, informed as he was prior to the rejection of the EU's usurious offer.
He even quite dramatically pulled out the Anti-Semite card. I had to throw Banderas in his
face and the US sponsored regime. I had respect for this guy and his knowledge but he just - could
- not - let - go the cult assumptions. I finally came to believe Liberal Arts educators are victims
of inbred conditioning. In retaliation, he wanted to somehow prove Putin a charlatan or villian
and Trump his proxie.
This, after I'd point out his evasion and deflection every time I addressed his bias and
belief in the MSM propaganda mantras of racism, misogyny, xenophobia - all the usual labeling
bullshit up to insinuating Russia hacked the election. Excerpts from a correspondence wherein
I go full asshole on the guy follow. Try and make sense of it if you watch this trash:
HyperNormalization 50:29 Not Ronald Rayguns, or Quadaffi plays along. Say what? They're, i.e.
Curtis, assuming what Q thought?
1:15 USSR collapses. No shit. Cronyism in a centralized organization grown too large is inevitable
it seems. So the premise has evolved to cultural/societal "management". Right. USSR collapses
but let's repeat the same mistakes 'cause "it's different this time". We got us a computer!
Then Fink the failed Squid (how do Squids climb the corporate ladder?) builds one and programs
historical data to,,,, forecast? I heard a' this. Let me guess. He couldn't avoid bias, making
his models fallacious. Whoops. Well, he does intend to manipulate society, or was that not the
goal? Come again? Some authority ran with it and ... captured an entire nation's media, conspired
with other like-minded sycophants and their mysterious masters to capture an election by ... I
may be getting ahead of myself.
Oh, boy, I have an inkling of where this is going. Perceptions modified by the word, advanced
by the herd, in order to capture a vulnerable society under duress, who then pick sides, fool
themselves in the process, miss the three hour tour never to live happily ever after on a deserted
isle because they eschew (pick a bias here from the list provided). The one you think the "others"
have, 'cause, shit, we're above it all, right? " Are we not entertained" is probably not the most
appropriate question here.
Point being, Curtis, the BBC documentarian, totally negates the reality of pathological Imperialism
as has been practiced by the West over the last half century, causing so many of the effects
he so casually eludes to in the Arab Spring, Libya, Syria, Russia, the US and elsewhere. Perhaps
the most blatant is this; Curtis asserts that Trump "defeated journalism" by rendering its fact-checking
abilities irrelevant. Wikipedia He Hypernormalizes the very audience that believes itself to be
enlightened. As for my erstwhile friend, the fucker never once admitted all the people *killed*
for the ideals he supported. I finally blew him off for good.
I've been using the term Hypernormalisation to describe aspects of western society for
the last 15 years, before Adam Curtis's brilliant BBC documentary Hypernormalisation , afflicting
western society and particularly politics. There are lies and gross distortions everywhere in
western society and it straddles/effects all races, colours, social classes and the disease is
most acute in our politics.
We all know the hypernoprmalisation in politics, as we witness stories everyday on Zerohedge
of the disconnect from reality...
Enter Operation Stillpoint: William Colby, William Casey and Leo Emil Wanta.
At the time it started, President Reagan wanted to get a better handle on ways to keep the
Soviets from expansionary tactics used to spread Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin's philosophy of
communism around the world. He looked to his Special Task Force to provide a means of doing so.
One thing was certain: The economy of the Soviets had never been strong and corruption, always
present in government and always growing at least as fast as a government grows, made the USSR
vulnerable to outside interference just as the United States is today.
According to Gorbachev's Prime Minister, Nikolai Ryzhkov, the "moral [nravstennoe] state of
the society" in 1985 was its "most terrifying" feature: "[We] stole from ourselves, took and gave
bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals
on one another. And all of this – from top to bottom and from bottom to top."
Again, it sounds like today's America, doesn't it?
Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze made equally painful comments about the lawlessness and
corruption dominating the Soviet Union. During the winter months of 1984-85, he told Gorbachev
that "Everything is rotten. It has to be changed."
"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong," Frantz Fanon said in his 1952 book
Black Skin, White Masks (originally published in French as Peau Noire, Masques Blancs). "When
they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted.
It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because
it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything
that doesn't fit with the core belief."
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
During their final days as a world power, the Soviet Union allowed cognitive dissonance
to rule its better judgment as so many Americans are doing in 2012. The handwriting on the wall
was pretty clear for Gorbachev. The Soviet economy was failing. They did none of the necessary
things to save their economy. In 2012, the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear for the American
people. The economy is failing. The people and the Congress do none of the necessary things to
save their economy. Why? Go re-read the definition of cognitive dissonance. That's why. We have
a classic fight going on between those who want government to take care of them who will pay the
price of lost freedom to get that care, and those who value freedom above all else.
On one day we have 50 state attorneys general suing Bank of America for making fraudulent mortgages,
and on the next we have M.F. Global losing billions upon billions of customer dollars because
they got mixed with the firm's funds – which is against the law – or we have J.P. Morgan Chase
losing $2 billion (or is it $5 billion?) in bad investments. As Eduard Shevardnadze said, "Everything
is rotten. It has to be changed." As I would say it, "There is no Rule of Law in America today.
There has been no real Rule of Law since George Herbert Walker Bush took office."
No one listened then; no one is listening in America now. The primary reason? Cognitive dissonance.
-- Chapter 2, "Wanta! Black Swan, White Hat" (2013)
Okay then, forget what was said in 1985, that was later reported in 2013 ..
Lee Wanta. I've heard of him before. He was screwed over for some bullshit charges. And the
CIA made a firm warning... How long did that dude spent in jail?
Just looked up his story as it was blurry. Cronyism at its finest. So now that I got my refreshing
course. Trump stole/adopted (however you want to look at that) his plan and the project the gov
(DOT) proposes sucks donkey balls compared to Wanta's.
So where are all the climate hoaxers now by the way? You'd figure they'd be all over this.
to me the PTB are "Japanifying" the u.s. (decades of no growth, near total demoralization
of a generation of worker bees (as in, 'things will never get any better, be glad for what little
you've got' etc... look what they've done to u.s. millenials just since '08... fooled (crushed)
them TWICE already)
But the PTB Plan B is to emulate the USSR with a crackup, replete with fire sale to oligarchs
of public assets. They will Japan as long as they can (so it will be difficult to forecast
any crackup anymore than six months beforehand). Hope they have a Gorbachev lined up, to limit
the bloodshed
I'm an environmental scientist, not an economist, but it seems to me that Pope Francis has some
sensible things to say, as in the following from Laudato si:
IV. POLITICS AND ECONOMY IN DIALOGUE FOR HUMAN FULFILMENT
189. Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to
the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy. Today, in view of the common good,
there is urgent need for politics and economics to enter into a frank dialogue in the service
of life, especially human life. Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price,
foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms the absolute
power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises
after a slow, costly and only apparent recovery. The financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an opportunity
to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of regulating speculative
financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not include rethinking
the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world. Production is not always rational,
and is usually tied to economic variables which assign to products a value that does not necessarily
correspond to their real worth. This frequently leads to an overproduction of some commodities,
with unnecessary impact on the environment and with negative results on regional economies.[133]
The financial bubble also tends to be a productive bubble. The problem of the real economy is
not confronted with vigour, yet it is the real economy which makes diversification and improvement
in production possible, helps companies to function well, and enables small and medium businesses
to develop and create employment.
190. Here too, it should always be kept in mind that "environmental protection cannot be assured
solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of
those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces".[134] Once more,
we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be
solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals. Is it realistic to hope
that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental
damage which they will leave behind for future generations? Where profits alone count, there can
be no thinking about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity
of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention. Moreover, biodiversity is considered
at most a deposit of economic resources available for exploitation, with no serious thought for
the real value of things, their significance for persons and cultures, or the concerns and needs
of the poor.
191. Whenever these questions are raised, some react by accusing others of irrationally
attempting to stand in the way of progress and human development. But we need to grow in the conviction
that a decrease in the pace of production and consumption can at times give rise to another form
of progress and development. Efforts to promote a sustainable use of natural resources are
not a waste of money, but rather an investment capable of providing other economic benefits in
the medium term. If we look at the larger picture, we can see that more diversified and innovative
forms of production which impact less on the environment can prove very profitable. It is a matter
of openness to different possibilities which do not involve stifling human creativity and its
ideals of progress, but rather directing that energy along new channels.
192. For example, a path of productive development, which is more creative and better directed,
could correct the present disparity between excessive technological investment in consumption
and insufficient investment in resolving urgent problems facing the human family. It could generate
intelligent and profitable ways of reusing, revamping and recycling, and it could also improve
the energy efficiency of cities. Productive diversification offers the fullest possibilities to
human ingenuity to create and innovate, while at the same time protecting the environment and
creating more sources of employment. Such creativity would be a worthy expression of our most
noble human qualities, for we would be striving intelligently, boldly and responsibly to promote
a sustainable and equitable development within the context of a broader concept of quality of
life. On the other hand, to find ever new ways of despoiling nature, purely for the sake of new
consumer items and quick profit, would be, in human terms, less worthy and creative, and more
superficial.
193. In any event, if in some cases sustainable development were to involve new forms of growth,
then in other cases, given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades,
we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing
our steps before it is too late. We know how unsustainable is the behaviour of those who constantly
consume and destroy, while others are not yet able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity.
That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order
to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth. Benedict XVI has said that
"technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while
reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency".[135]
194. For new models of progress to arise, there is a need to change "models of global development";[136]
this will entail a responsible reflection on "the meaning of the economy and its goals with an
eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications".[137] It is not enough to balance, in
the medium term, the protection of nature with financial gain, or the preservation of the environment
with progress. Halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster. Put simply, it is a matter
of redefining our notion of progress. A technological and economic development which does not
leave in its wake a better world and an integrally higher quality of life cannot be considered
progress. Frequently, in fact, people's quality of life actually diminishes – by the deterioration
of the environment, the low quality of food or the depletion of resources – in the midst of economic
growth. In this context, talk of sustainable growth usually becomes a way of distracting attention
and offering excuses. It absorbs the language and values of ecology into the categories of finance
and technocracy, and the social and environmental responsibility of businesses often gets reduced
to a series of marketing and image-enhancing measures.
195. The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations,
reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. As long as production is increased,
little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the
environment; as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses
entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or the increased pollution.
In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved.
Yet only when "the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized
with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations",[138]
can those actions be considered ethical. An instrumental way of reasoning, which provides a purely
static analysis of realities in the service of present needs, is at work whether resources are
allocated by the market or by state central planning.
196. What happens with politics? Let us keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity, which grants
freedom to develop the capabilities present at every level of society, while also demanding a
greater sense of responsibility for the common good from those who wield greater power. Today,
it is the case that some economic sectors exercise more power than states themselves. But economics
without politics cannot be justified, since this would make it impossible to favour other ways
of handling the various aspects of the present crisis. The mindset which leaves no room for sincere
concern for the environment is the same mindset which lacks concern for the inclusion of the most
vulnerable members of society. For "the current model, with its emphasis on success and self-reliance,
does not appear to favour an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak or the less talented
to find opportunities in life".[139]
197. What is needed is a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary
approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis. Often, politics itself is responsible
for the disrepute in which it is held, on account of corruption and the failure to enact sound
public policies. If in a given region the state does not carry out its responsibilities, some
business groups can come forward in the guise of benefactors, wield real power, and consider themselves
exempt from certain rules, to the point of tolerating different forms of organized crime, human
trafficking, the drug trade and violence, all of which become very difficult to eradicate. If
politics shows itself incapable of breaking such a perverse logic, and remains caught up in inconsequential
discussions, we will continue to avoid facing the major problems of humanity. A strategy for real
change calls for rethinking processes in their entirety, for it is not enough to include a few
superficial ecological considerations while failing to question the logic which underlies present-day
culture. A healthy politics needs to be able to take up this challenge.
198. Politics and the economy tend to blame each other when it comes to poverty and environmental
degradation. It is to be hoped that they can acknowledge their own mistakes and find forms of
interaction directed to the common good. While some are concerned only with financial gain, and
others with holding on to or increasing their power, what we are left with are conflicts or spurious
agreements where the last thing either party is concerned about is caring for the environment
and protecting those who are most vulnerable. Here too, we see how true it is that "unity is greater
than conflict".[140]
From Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' of the Holy Father Francis, On Care For
Our Common Home:
The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that humanity has taken
up technology and its development according to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional
paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical
and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over
an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific
and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession,
mastery and transformation. It is as if the subject were to find itself
in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation.
Men and women have constantly intervened in nature, but for a long time
this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by
the things themselves. It was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed,
as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands
on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently
ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us. Human beings and material
objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship
has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of
infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists,
financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there
is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet
being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite
quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew
them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural
order can be easily absorbed"
"The technocratic paradigm also tends to
dominate economic and political life. The economy accepts every advance
in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially
negative impact on human beings. Finance overwhelms the real economy. The
lessons of the global financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we
are learning all too slowly the lessons of environmental deterioration.
Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all
environmental problems, and argue, in popular and non-technical terms, that
the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market
growth. They are less concerned with certain economic theories which today
scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their actual operation in the functioning
of the economy. They may not affirm such theories with words, but nonetheless
support them with their deeds by showing no interest in more balanced levels
of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment
and the rights of future generations. Their behavior shows that for them
maximizing profits is enough. Yet by itself the market cannot guarantee
integral human development and social inclusion. At the same time, we have
"a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms
an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation",
while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social
initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic resources. We
fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do
with the direction, goals, meaning and social implications of technological
and economic growth."
"... By #SlayTheSmaugs, an elected Bernie delegate in Philly. ..."
"... #STS believes that the billionaire class are Smaugs (the greed incarnate dragon of The Hobbit),
immorally hoarding wealth for no reason beyond ego gratification. To "Slay" the Smaugs, we need a confiscatory
wealth tax, stronger democratic institutions to impose it, and a shared moral agreement that #GreedIsEvil
to justify it. ..."
"... More; charitable foundations are not the same thing, in many cases, as true charity. Instead
foundations often function as hoard preservers as well, and enrich their leadership too. ..."
"... After a certain level of accumulation money is simply ego gratifying points, it's not money
any more. ..."
"... Wealth on this scale has nothing to do with financial security or luxurious living. For the
trivial, it is (as per D. Trump) a game and money is how you keep score. For the serious, it has to
do with power, with the ability to affect other people's lives without their consent. That is why the
Smaugs' wealth is absolutely our business. It should be understood that we're talking about taking very
large amounts of money and power away from very rich people, people for whom money and power are pretty
much the only things they value. It will not be pretty. ..."
"... If we fail to prevent the imposition of this transnational regime there will only be three
classes of humans left: kleptocrats, their favored minions, and slaves. ..."
"... A more modern similarity of the US is Rome. Vassals have been going full retard for several
years now, traitors sell international competitors military secrets while the biggest merchants buy
off the Senate. ..."
"... Isn't there an idiom about cutting off the head of the snake? Once you deal with the strongest
opponents, it's easier to go after the others. Too big to fail is nothing short of feeding the beast.
..."
"... I disagree strongly with your premise that some sort of pure and natural meritocracy has ever
existed, or could ever exist in human society. Corrupt and oppressive people will always define as "meritorious"
those qualities that they themselves possess– whether wealth, "gentle birth," "technical skills," or
whatever. We all possess the same merit of being human. ..."
By #SlayTheSmaugs, an elected Bernie delegate in Philly.
#STS believes that the billionaire class are Smaugs (the greed incarnate dragon of
The Hobbit), immorally hoarding wealth for no reason beyond ego gratification. To "Slay" the Smaugs,
we need a confiscatory wealth tax, stronger democratic institutions to impose it, and a shared moral
agreement that #GreedIsEvil to justify it.
Worshiping Wealth
When Gordon Gekko proclaimed that 'Greed is Good' in 1987, it was an obvious rejection of several
millennia of teachings by traditional prophets and priests. Yet when Gekko preached greed, he was
merely reinforcing the current cultural norm; greed had already been rebranded a virtue. (Still,
the speech was to remind us Gekko was a bad guy). Consider that Madonna had proclaimed herself a
Material Girl three years earlier, and "Living Large" was cool. Conspicuous consumption is walking
the talk that greed is good.
Why had greed become good? I blame the creation of a credit-fueled culture of constant consumption
that necessarily praises coveting stuff, plus the dismantling of the regulatory state that had kept
Wall Street and wannabe oligarchs in check.
Our healthy cultural adoration of the self-made man, of respect for success, warped into worship
of the rich. They are not the same. Wealth can be inherited, stolen through fraud and other illegal
activities, or harvested from bubbles; none of these or myriad other paths to riches is due respect,
much less worship. Paired with another 80's definition-government is the problem-worshiping wealth
facilitates all the dysfunction in our government.
Remembering Greed is Evil
Thirty years later, the old social norm-the one that protected the many from the few, the one
that demonized greed as a deadly sin-is resurgent. We have a Pope who preaches against greed, and
who
walks his talk . We had a Presidential candidate of a major party-Bernie Sanders-who railed against
those living embodiments of greed, the Billionaire Class, and walked his talk by rejecting their
money. At the convention, he has invited delegates to four workshops, one of which is "One Nation
Now: Winning the Fight Against Racism and Greed". We have a late night comedian-John Oliver-
ridiculing the prosperity gospel
and taking on the debt
industry . We have mass consciousness rising, reflected in Occupy, the label "the 99%", BLM and
more.
But we need more voices insisting #GreedIsEvil. We need to teach that basic message at home, in
school, and in houses of worship. We need to send the right signals in our social interactions. We
need to stop coveting stuff, and start buying with a purpose: Shopping locally, buying American,
buying green and clean, and buying less. We need to waste less, share more and build community. We
need to re-norm-alize greed as evil, make it shameful again. Then we will have redefined ourselves
as citizens, not consumers.
But make no mistake: America cannot become a just nation simply by the 99% becoming more virtuous.
The cultural shift is necessary but not sufficient, for norms alone do not deliver social and economic
justice. Shame will not slay the Smaugs; we need structural change in the political economy.
Extreme greed, the greed of Smaugs, is categorically different than the petit greed underlying
the irrational, constant consumption and the worship of wealth. Extreme greed manifests as a hoard
of wealth so great that "purchasing power" is an irrelevant concept; a hoard so great it lacks any
utility other than to be sat upon as a throne, gratifying the Smaug's ego and symbolizing his power.
That greed must be understood as an intolerable evil, something so base and malevolent that the full
power of the state must be used against it.
This essay is my contribution to the cause of returning extreme greed to its rightful place in
the pantheon of ultimate evils. Here is the thesis: extreme greed must be 'slain' by the state because
extreme greed is brutally violent.
The Stealth Violence of False Scarcity and "Cutting Corners"
Greed's violence is quiet and deadly: The violence of false scarcity and of "corner cutting".
Scarcity is not having enough because there just isn't enough to go round, like the
nearly 50 million people who don't reliably have food during the year, including 15 million kids.
False scarcity is when actually, there's plenty to go around, but people generally don't have enough
because of hoarders.
It's a concentrated version of what happened to pennies in 1999. People keeping pennies in piggy
banks created a
shortage felt throughout New York City . If only people had broken open their piggy banks, and
used their pennies, there would have been plenty of pennies in circulation, and shopkeepers wouldn't
lose money by rounding purchases down. In this piece, I'm focusing on false scarcity of dollars,
not pennies, and the maiming and premature death that results from false dollar scarcity. But the
idea is essentially the same; there's just far fewer relevant piggy banks.
By the quiet violence of 'corner cutting', I'm referring to unsafe, even deadly, workplaces that
could be safe if the employers invested in safety.
Sporadically, greed also drives overt, and sometimes profoundly bloody violence to protect the
hoard. Think of employer violence against unions and union organizers,
a la Henry Ford , or
John D. Rockefeller . Nonetheless in this country now, the violence of greed tends to be more
covert. It is that quiet violence, in both forms, I want you to hear now.
As Sanders often reminds us, in this, the richest nation in the world, nearly 50 million people
are living in poverty; roughly one in seven Americans. And as Sanders explained, in a
speech in West Virginia , 130,000 people die each and every year as a result of poverty. I have
not read the study Sanders referred to, so I don't know how much it overlaps with
the rise
of suicide that accelerated after 2006 and which appears to be correlated with financial stress.
Nor do I know how it overlaps with the
documented increase in white mortality that also appears to correlate with financial stress.
Regardless of overlap, however, each of these studies reflects the quiet violence of false scarcity.
Naked Capitalism has featured many posts documenting the damage of greed;
this is a recent one .
Chronic and acute financial stress from false scarcity maims, and kills. And Smaugs create false
scarcity to feed money to their egos and maintain their oligarchic power.
As Lambert often says, they don't call it class warfare for nothing.
But wait, you might insist, how false is the scarcity, really? How much do a few billionaires
matter? Ranting that greed is evil is all well and good, but really, can a relative handful of people
be manufacturing scarcity where there is none, shortening and taking millions of lives in the process?
Aren't you making your target too narrow in going after the Smaugs?
Twenty people had hoarded $732,000,000,000. America is a nation of about 300,000,000 people. That
means 20 people could give a combined $2,370 to every American, and still hoard $1 billion each.
I'm not suggesting that's how the redistribution should be done, but it's notable that in an era
when
some 200 million Americans haven't been able to save $1000 for an emergency, twenty people could
give everyone over two grand while remaining fabulously wealthy.
Now, these 20 monstrous people, these full grown Smaugs, are not alone in their extreme greed.
Adding in the assets of the next 380 richest Americans brings the total wealth hoarded to $2.34 trillion.
That number is so large it's hard to process , so let's think this through.
First, imagine that we took all of that money with a confiscatory tax, except we again left each
of the 400 people with $1 billion. They would still be obscenely rich, so don't pity them.* Our tax
thus netted $1.94 trillion. Since that's still an unimaginable number, let's compare it to some recent
government spending.
In December 2015, Congress funded five years' worth of infrastructure construction. Congress and
President Obama were very self-congratulatory because our infrastructure is a mess, and building
things involves good paying jobs. So, how much did five years of infrastructure building and job
creation cost?
$305 billion . That's less than the $400 billion we let the 400 Smaugs keep at the start of this
thought experiment. With the $1.94 trillion we imagine confiscating, we could keep building at the
2015 pace for 32 years. Or we could spend it much faster, and create an economic boom the like of
which this nation hasn't seen in generations.
Even Bernie Sanders, he of the supposedly overly ambitious, unable-to-be-paid for initiatives,
only
proposed spending $1 trillion on infrastructure over five years -a bit more than half what our
tax would net. (Nor did this supposed radical call for a confiscatory wealth tax to fund his plan.)
Sanders estimated his proposal would create 13 million good paying jobs. With nearly double the money,
surely we get nearly double the jobs? Let's be conservative and say 22 million.
In sum, we could confiscate most of the wealth of 400 people-still leaving them obscenely rich
with $1 billion each-and create 22 million good paying jobs over five years. But we don't; we let
the Smaugs keep their hoards intact. Now consider this is only taxing 400 people; what if we taxed
the richest 2,000 people more justly? What if we taxed corporations effectively? What if we stopped
giving corporate welfare? A confiscatory wealth tax, however, simply isn't discussed in polite company,
any more than a truly progressive income tax is, or even serious proposals to end corporate welfare.
The best we can do is agree that really, someday soon, we should end the obscenity that is the carried
interest loophole.
False scarcity isn't simply a failure of charity, a hoarding of wealth that should be alms for
the poor. False scarcity is created through the billionaires' control of the state, of public policy.
But the quiet violence of greed isn't visited on the 99% only through the failure to pay adequate
taxes. Not even through the Smaugs' failure to have their corporations pay adequate wages, or benefits.
Predatory lending, predatory servicing, fraudulent foreclosure, municipal bond rigging, and pension
fund fleecing are just some of the many other ways immoral greed creates false scarcity.
While false scarcity has the broadest impact, it is not the only form of stealth violence used
by the billionaires in their class war against the rest of us. The Ford and Rockefeller style violence
of fists and guns may be rare in the U.S. these days, but a variant of it remains much too common:
Unsafe workplaces, the quiet violence of "cutting corners". Whether it's
the coal industry , the
poultry
industry , or the
fracking and
oil industries, or myriad other industries, unsafe workplaces kill, maim and sicken workers.
Part of the political economy restructuring we must do includes transforming the workplace.
Feel the Greed
Let us remember why this stealth violence exists-why false scarcity and unsafe workplaces exist.
People who have more money than they hope to spend for the rest of their lives, no matter how
many of their remaining days are "rainy"; people who have more money to pass on than their children
need for a lifetime of financial security, college and retirement included; people who have more
money to pass on than their grandchildren need for a similarly secure life–these people insist on
extracting still more wealth from their workers, their clients, and taxpayers for no purpose beyond
vaingloriously hoarding it.
Greed is evil, but it comes in different intensities. Petit greed is a corrosive illness that
decays societies, but can be effectively ameliorated through norms and social capital. Smaug greed
is so toxic, so potent, that the state is the only entity powerful enough to put it in check. Greed,
particularly Smaug greed, must be put in check because the false scarcity it manufactures, and the
unsafe workplaces it creates, maim and kill people. The stealth violence of Smaug greed justifies
a tax to confiscate the hoards.
#GreedIsEvil. It's time to #SlayTheSmaugs
*One of the arguments against redistribution is that is against the sacrosanct efficient market,
which forbids making one person better off if the price is making someone else worse off. But money
has diminishing returns as money after a certain point; the purchasing power between someone
with one billion and ten billion dollars is negligible, though the difference between someone with
ten thousand and a hundred thousand, or a hundred thousand and a million is huge. After a certain
level of accumulation money is simply ego gratifying points, it's not money any more. Thus taking
it and using it as money isn't making someone 'worse off' in an economic sense. Also, when considering
whether someone is 'worse off', it's worth considering where their money comes from; how many people
did they leave 'worse off' as they
extracted the money? Brett ,
July 22, 2016 at 10:07 am
After a certain level of accumulation money is simply ego gratifying points, it's not
money any more.
It quite literally isn't "money" as we regular folks know it beyond a certain point – it's
tied up in share value and other assets. Which of course raises the question – when you decide
to do your mass confiscation of wealth, who is going to be foolish enough to buy those assets
so you actually have liquid currency to spend on infrastructure as opposed to illiquid assets?
Or are you simply going to print money and spend it on them?
Wealth on this scale has nothing to do with financial security or luxurious living. For
the trivial, it is (as per D. Trump) a game and money is how you keep score. For the serious,
it has to do with power, with the ability to affect other people's lives without their consent.
That is why the Smaugs' wealth is absolutely our business. It should be understood that we're
talking about taking very large amounts of money and power away from very rich people, people
for whom money and power are pretty much the only things they value. It will not be pretty.
People become rich and stay that way because of a market failure that allows them to accumulate
capital in the same way a constricted artery accumulates blood. What I'm wondering, continuing
this metaphor, is what happens when all that money is released back into the market at once via
a redistribution - toxic shock syndrome.
You can see what happens to markets in places where "virtual money" (capital) brushes up against
the real economy: the dysfunctional housing situation in Vancouver, London, New York, and San
Francisco.
It may be wiser to argue for wealth disintegration instead of redistribution.
Yes I was thinking about that … money is just something the government prints to make the system
work smoothly. But that, and pretty much any view of money, obscures the problem with the insanely
"wealthy".
If these people, instead of having huge bank accounts actually had huge armies the government
would move to disarm them. It wouldn't re-distribute the tanks and rifles. It would be obviously
removing a threat to everybody.
Now there would be the temptation to wave your hands and say you were "melting it into plowshares"
but that causes an accounting problem - that is, the problem being the use of accounting itself.
Destroying extreme wealth and paying for say roads is just two different things and making them
sound connected is where we keep getting bogged down. Not a full-on MMT'er yet but it really has
illuminated that fact.
The western assumption is that money is a commodity, from salt to gold, to bitcoin, we assume
it can be manufactured, but the underlaying reality is that it is a social contract and every
asset is presumably backed by debt.
Here is an interesting link which does make the point about the contractual basis of money in
a succinct fashion; http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.us/opinions/ideas/economics/jubilee/
Since the modern commodity of money is backed by debt and largely public debt, there is enormous
pressure to create as much debt as possible.
For instance, the government doesn't really budget, it just writes up these enormous bills, attaches
enough goodies to get the votes and the president can only pass or veto it and with all the backing
and no other method, a veto is a weak protection.
To budget is to prioritize and spend according to ability. What they could do would be to break
these bills into all their various "line items," have every legislator assign a percentage value
to each one, put them back together in order of preference and then the president would draw the
line.
It would balance the power and reduce the tendency to overspend, but it would blow up our financial
system, which if anyone notices, is based on the sanctity of government debt.
If instead of borrowing the excess money out of the system, to spend on whatever, if the government
threatened to tax it out, people would quickly find other ways to store value than as money in
the financial system.
Since most of us save for the same general reasons, from raising children to retirement, we
could invest in these as public commons, not try to save for our exact needs. This would serve
to strengthen communities and their environments, as everyone would be more dependent on those
around them, not just having a private bank account as their personal umbilical cord.
We treat money as both medium of exchange and store of value. As Rick points out above, a medium
is like blood in the body and it needs to be carefully regulated. Conversely, the store of value
in the body is fat and while many of us do carry an excess, storing it in the circulation system
is not wise. Clogged arteries, poor circulation and high blood pressure are analogous to a bloated
financial system, poor circulation and QE.
Money is not a commodity, but a contract.
Do you realize that this supposed billionaire wealth does not consist of actual US dollars
and that, if one were to liquidate such wealth (in order to redistribute it in "fair" equal-dollars)
that number might drastically change?
The main thing these people (and indeed your pension funds) are actually hoarding are financial
assets, and those, it turns out, are actually "scarce". Or, well, I don't know what else you would
call trillions of bonds netting a negative interest rate and an elevated P/E stock market in a
low-growth environment.
It's a bit of a pickle from a macro environment. You can't just force them to liquidate their
assets, or else the whole system would collapse. It also kind of escapes the point that someone
has to hold each asset. I would be excited to see what happens when you ask Bill Gates to liquidate
his financial assets (in order to distribute the cash). An interesting thought, for sure. And
one that would probably bring the market closer to reasonable valuations.
It is simply a wrong conclusion to say "Wealth is x, and if we distribute it, everyone would
get x divided by amount of recipients in dollar terms". Now if you wanted to redistribute Bill
Gates' stake in Microsoft in some "fair" way, you could certainly try but that's not really what
you proposed.
Either way you can't approach wealth policy from a macro perspective like this, because as
soon as you start designing macro-level policy to adjust (i.e. redistribute) this wealth, the
value of it will fluctuate very wildly in dollar terms and may well leave everyone less well off
in some weird feedback loop.
"The full power of the state must be used against" #extremegreed: Except, of course, "L'etat
c'est moi…"
Of course as a Bernie supporter, the writer knows that, knows that it is a long game to even
start to move any of the hoard out of Smaug's cave, that there are dwarves with glittering eyes
ready to take back and reduce to ownership and ornamentation the whole pile (maybe they might
'share" a little with the humans of Lake Town who suffered the Dragon's Fire but whose Hero drove
a mystical iron arrow through the weak place in Smaug's armor, all while Sauron and Saruman are
circling and plotting and growing hordes of genetically modified Orcs and Trolls and summoning
the demons from below…
The Elves seem to be OK with a "genteel sufficiency," their wealth being useful durable stuff
like mithril armor and those lovely houses and palaces up in the trees. Humans? Grabbers and takers,
in Tolkien's mythology. I would second that view - sure seems to me that almost any of us, given
a 1000-Bagger like Zuckerman or Jobs or that Gates creature fell into, or Russian or Israeli or
African or European oligarchs for that matter (pretty universal, and expected given Davos and
Bilderberg and Koch summits) the old insatiable lambic system that drives for pleasure-to-the-max
and helps our baser tribal drives and penchant for violence to manifest and "thrive" will have
its due. Like 600 foot motor yachts and private-jet escape pods and pinnacles islands with Dr.
No-style security provided by guns and accountants and lawyers and faux-legitimate political rulers
for hire…
Lots of analysis of "the problem." Not so much in the way of apparent remedies, other than
maybe lots of bleeding, where the mopes will do most of it and if history is any guide, another
Smaug will go on around taking all the gold and jewels and other concentrated wealth back to another
pile, to sit on and not maybe even gloat over because the scales are just too large…
Still hoping for the emergence of an organizing principle that is more attractive that "take
whatever you can and cripple or kill anyone who objects…"
"People who have more money than they hope to spend for the rest of their lives, no matter
how many of their remaining days are "rainy"; people who have more money to pass on than their
children need for a lifetime of financial security, college and retirement included; people
who have more money to pass on than their grandchildren need for a similarly secure life–these
people insist on extracting still more wealth from their workers, their clients, and taxpayers
for no purpose beyond vaingloriously hoarding it."
These are people who are obscenely wealthy as opposed to merely wealthy. The fastest way to
challenge their toxic power would be to help the latter group understand that their interests
are not aligned with the former. Most millionaires (as opposed to billionaires) will eventually
suffer when the last few drops of wealth remaining to the middle and working classes are extracted.
Their future prosperity depends on the continued existence of a viable, mass consumer economy.
The billionaires imagine (in my view falsely) that they will thrive in a neo-feudal future–
where they own everything and the vast majority of humanity exists only to serve their needs.
This is the future they are attempting to build with the new TPP/TISA/TTIP regime. If we fail
to prevent the imposition of this transnational regime there will only be three classes of humans
left: kleptocrats, their favored minions, and slaves. Most neoliberal professionals, who imagine
that they will be in that second group, are delusional. Did the pharaohs have any need for people
like Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd?
Pharaohs didn't need a middle/professional class as large as the ones in most western democracies
today. But, we are going in the pharaonic direction.
The problem our polite, right wing professional classes face is that they are increasingly
too numerous for society's needs. Hence the creeping gig-i-fication of professional employment.
The wage stagnation in all but the most guild-ridden (medicine) professions.
It's so reminiscent of what happened to the industrial working class in the late 70s and 80s.
I still remember the "well-reasoned", literate arguments in magazine op-eds proclaiming how line
workers had become "excess" in the face of Asian competition and automation. How most just needed
to retrain, move to where the jobs are, tighten their belts, etc. It's identical now for lawyers,
radiologists, and many layers of the teaching professions. If I weren't part of that "professional"
class I'd find the Schadenfreude almost too delicious.
If we fail to prevent the imposition of this transnational regime there will only be three
classes of humans left: kleptocrats, their favored minions, and slaves.
Sounds about right, but you are overlooking the fact that the largest class will be The Dead.
They will not need nearly so many of Us, and we will be thinned, trimmed, pruned, marooned, or
otherwise made to go away permanently (quietly, for preference, I assume, but any way will do).
Ergo, the violence of ineffectual health care, toxic environment, poisonous food, dangerous
working conditions and violence (for instance, guns and toxic chemicals) in our homes, schools,
streets, workplaces, cities and, well, everywhere are not only a feature, but a major part of
the plan.
It has been extensively documented that the merely wealthy are very upset at the obscenely
wealthy.
If the author is truly focusing on a tax for obscene wealth I'd like to know a specific threshold.
Is it 1 Billion and up? annual limit how many times the median income before it kicks in?
Well, I'm happy to have a discussion about at what threshold a confiscatory wealth tax should
kick in; it's the kind of conversation we have with estate taxes.
I'm thinking a one off wealth tax, followed by a prevention of the resurrection of the problem
with a sharply progressive income tax. Is $1 billion the right number for this initial reclamation?
maybe. It is about the very top few, not the merely wealthy.
$1 billion is a reasonable amount of assets for determining whether to confiscate a portion
of a person's wealth in taxes. Or perhaps we could base it on a percentage of GDP. The U.S. GDP
in 2015 was approximately $17.9 trillion. Anyone with $1.79 billion or more in assets would have
1% of 1% of the U.S. GDP (0.01%). That's a lot of wealth, and surely justifies a heavy tax.
'Professionals, who imagine that they will be in that second group, are delusional. Did the
pharaohs have any need of Paul Krugman'
Sure they did. Those were called Priests who told the people what the gods were thinking. And
since Pharoah's concluded themselves gods. The slaves revolt by working less. Anybody notice the
dropping production levels the last couple of years? Whipping the slaves didn't turn out well
for the Egyptians.
A more modern similarity of the US is Rome. Vassals have been going full retard for several
years now, traitors sell international competitors military secrets while the biggest merchants
buy off the Senate.
Ceasar becomes more a figurehead until one leads a coup which has not happened yet. Aquiring
more slaves begins to cost more than what the return in general to the society brings but the
Smaugs do not care about that until the barbarians begin to revolt (See Orlando for example, the
shooter former employee of DHS. Probably pissed some of his comrades were deserted by US in some
manner.
My point was that the category of people in this priestly caste will likely be far, far smaller
than the millions of credentialed neoliberal professionals currently living large in the top 10%
of the developed world.
Interesting mental image– to see Paul Krugman chanting praises to the new Son of the Sun God
the Donald!!
Look, there's a simple way to #SlayTheSmaugs, and it's a confiscatory wealth tax coupled with
a sharply progressive income tax, as part of an overall restructuring of the political economy.
Simple, is of course, not easy; indeed my proposal is currently impossible. But like Bernie
I'm trying to change the terms of political debate, to normalize what would previously be dismissed
as too radical to be countenanced.
I don't think the looting professional class needs to be slain, in the #SlayTheSmaugs sense.
I think they can be brought to heel simply by enforcing laws and passing new ones that are already
within acceptable political debate, such as one that defines corruption as using public office
for private gain. I think norms matter to the looting professional class as well. Another re-norm-ilization
that needs to happen is remembering what a "profession" used to be…
Friends and neighbors!! Most of this "wealth" is ephemeral, it is based on the "value of assets"
like stocks, bonds, real estate, et al. If all of this "wealth" gets liquidated at the same time,
values would collapse. These people are fabulously wealthy because of the incredible inflation
we have seen in the "assets" they hold.
Remember, during the Great Depression the "wealth" wasn't confiscated and redistributed, it
was destroyed because asset values collapsed and over 2000 banks failed wiping out customer accounts.
This also collapsed the money supply causing debt defaults, businesses failures, and worker laid
offs. No one had any money because there was none.
The US was on the gold standard limiting the creation of liquidity. President Roosevelt went
off the gold standard so that he could work to increase the money supply. It took a long time.
The result of the depression was decades of low debt, cheap housing, and hard working people who
remembered the hard times. The social mood gradually changed as their children, born in more prosperous
times, challenged the values of their parents.
Even though the bulk of what the super rich hold is in paper assets, they still hold tons of
real economy assets. They've succeeded in buying enough prime and even merely good real estate
(like multiple townhouses in Upper West Side blocks and then creating one monster home behind
the facade) to create pricing pressure on ordinary renters and homeowners in the same cities,
bidding art through the roof, owning mega-yachts and private airplanes, and most important of
all, using the money directly to reshape society along their preferred lines, witness charter
schools.
If you are going to fight against the "Greed is Good" mentality, you are going to have to address
the habits of the average middle class household. Just take a look at the over accumulation of
amenities and creature comforts. The desire to signal ones status/wealth through "stuff" is totally
out of control and completely divorced from means/income.
"But we need more voices insisting #GreedIsEvil. We need to teach that basic message at home,
in school, and in houses of worship. We need to send the right signals in our social interactions.
We need to stop coveting stuff, and start buying with a purpose: Shopping locally, buying American,
buying green and clean, and buying less. We need to waste less, share more and build community.
We need to re-norm-alize greed as evil, make it shameful again. Then we will have redefined ourselves
as citizens, not consumers."
Isn't there an idiom about cutting off the head of the snake? Once you deal with the strongest
opponents, it's easier to go after the others. Too big to fail is nothing short of feeding the
beast.
There was a time not that long ago that I would have opposed a "confiscatory wealth tax". After
looking at what most of those in the .1% are doing with their wealth, and their contempt for the
average person, those days are long gone. Plus it's good economics.
The only question is what is "obscene wealth". Well like pornography, I think we know it when
we see it.
I am wondering about the distribution of all this concentrated wealth; how much of it is spread
around in the equities and bond markets?
And if that amount was redistributed to the general public how much of it would return to the
equities and bond market?
I'm thinking not very much which would have catastrophic effects on both markets, a complete
reordering. This would undoubtedly crush the borrowing ability of our Federal government, upset
the apple cart in other words. With less money invested in the equities market it would undoubtedly
return to a lower more realistic valuation; fortunes would be lost with no redistribution.
Fair to ask: How do we achieve a confiscatory wealth tax without catastrophic unintended consequences?
But that's a very different question than: should we confiscate the Smaug's wealth?
One mechanism might be to have a government entity created to receive the stocks, bonds and
financial instruments, and then liquidate them over time. E.g. Buffett has been giving stock to
foundations for them to sell for awhile now; same kind of thing could be done. But sure, let's
have the "How" conversation…
If lobbying were outlawed at the Federal level the billionaires and multi millionaires would
need to invest in something else. That signal has a multiplier effect.so your right eboit enforcement
of mostly what is on the books already. A 'wall' doesnt have to be built for illegal immigrants
either. Fine a couple dozen up the wazoo and the signal gets passed the game is over.
But until a few people's daughters are kidnapped or killed like in other 3rd world countries,
it wont change. That is sad but reality is most people do not do anything until it effects them.
I started slightly ahead of the crowd in summer of 2007 but that is because a regional banker
told me as we liked discussing history to look at debt levels of 1928 and what happened next.
On top of that, we are the like the British empire circa 1933 so we get the downside of that as
well.
Pain tends to be the catalyst of evolution that fully awakens prey to the predators.
I am sorry, Sir Smaug slayer. The underlying theme of your lengthy disquisition is that Sanders
is the legitimate voice of the 99%, and his future complicity within the Democratic Party is thereby
ameliorated by his current proposals within it. This is the true meat of your discourse ranging
so far and wide – even with the suggestion early on that we the 99% need tutoring on the evils
of greed.
Not so. That ship has sailed. Our Brexit is not yet upon us, but that it is coming, I have
no doubt. The only question is when. To paraphrase a Hannah Sell quote on such matters. . . for
decades working class people have had no representation in the halls of Congress. All of the politicians
. . . without exception, have stood in the interests of the 1% and the super-rich.
Bernie Sanders included. Hannah's remarks were more upbeat – she made an exception for Jeremy
Corbyn. Unfortunately, I can't do that. Bernie has folded. We need to acknowledge that.
One of the arguments against redistribution is that is against the sacrosanct efficient
market, which forbids making one person better off if the price is making someone else worse
off.
I think you mean downward redistribution here since upward redistribution seems to be rather
sacrosanct and definitely makes one person better off at the price of making many someones worse
off to make it happen.
Confiscatory wealth tax is too blunt an instrument to rectify the root causes discussed in
this article, and you do not want a blunt impact to the effect of disincentivizing pursuit of
financial success.
Further Centralization the populous' money will incite more corruption which is what allows
the have's to continue lording it over the have nots.
What are alternatives?
Instead Focus on minimizing corruption,
Then it will be possible to implement fair legislation that limits the options of the greed to
make decisions that results in unfair impacts on the lower class.
Increase incentives to share the wealth, (tax deductible charitable giving is an example).
We do need to encourage meritocracy whenever possible, corruption and oppression is the antithesis
to that.
We need to stop incentivizing utilization of debt, that puts the haves in control of the have
nots.
"Financial success. " As long as those words go together, and make an object of desire, the
fundamental problem ain't going away.
Of course the underlying fundamental problem of human appetite for pleasure and power ain't
going away either. Even if a lot of wealth was taken back (NOT "confiscated") from the current
crop and hopeful horde of kleptocrats…
"We do need to encourage meritocracy whenever possible, corruption and oppression is the antithesis
to that."
I disagree strongly with your premise that some sort of pure and natural meritocracy has
ever existed, or could ever exist in human society. Corrupt and oppressive people will always
define as "meritorious" those qualities that they themselves possess– whether wealth, "gentle
birth," "technical skills," or whatever. We all possess the same merit of being human.
An Egyptologist, with an Oxbridge degree and extensive publications has no merit– in any meaningful
sense– inside a frozen foods warehouse. Likewise, the world's best frozen foods warehouse worker
has little to offer, when addressing a conference focused on religious practices during the reign
of Ramses II. Meritocracy is a neoliberal myth, intended to obscure the existence of oligarchy.
An Egyptologist, with an Oxbridge degree and extensive publications has no merit– in any
meaningful sense– inside a frozen foods warehouse. Likewise, the world's best frozen foods
warehouse worker has little to offer, when addressing a conference focused on religious practices
during the reign of Ramses II. Meritocracy is a neoliberal myth, intended to obscure the existence
of oligarchy.
I am confused.
You claim meritocracy is "a neoliberal myth, intended to obscure the existence of oligarchy",
but (seemingly) appeal to meritocratic principles to claim a warehouse worker doesnt offer much
to an academic conference. Can you clear up my misunderstanding?
I agree, btw, that Idealized meritocracy has never existed (nor can). Follow up question: There
has never been an ideal ethical human, does that mean we should stop encouraging ethical behavior?
Meritocracy is not the same as recognizing greater and lesser degrees of competence in various
activities. It is absurd to deny that some are more skillful at some things than others. Assigning
the relative "merit" to various competencies is what I find objectionable.
Encouraging ethical behavior has nothing to do with ranking the "merit" levels of different
occupations. While some occupations are inherently unethical, like that of an assassin, most can
be performed in such a way as to do no harm to others, and some are nearly always beneficial to
society at large.
Someone who did nothing but drink whiskey all day, and tell funny stories in a bar, is far
more beneficial to society at large than a busy, diligent economist dreaming up ways to justify
the looting of the kleptocrats.
Wealth Redistribution occurs when the peasants build a scaffold and frog march the aristocracy
up to a blade; when massive war wipes out a generation of aristocracy in gas filled trenches or
in the upcoming event.
Religion is definitely a useful tool fight neoliberalism. Actually outside of far right and religious
fundamentalists almost any tool that is useful for fighting neoliberalism should be viewed positively.
Currently Catholicism opposes neoliberalism more actively and probably somewhat more successfully due
to the statute of Pope Francis then Orthodox Church.
Notable quotes:
"... The conflict between Russia and the West, therefore, is portrayed by both the ROC and by Vladimir Putin and his cohorts as nothing less than a spiritual/civilizational conflict. ..."
Amidst the geopolitical confrontation between Vladimir Putin's Russia and the US and its allies,
little attention has been paid to the role played by religion either as a shaper of Russian domestic
politics or as a means of understanding Putin's international actions. The role of religion has long
tended to get short thrift in the study of statecraft (although it has been experiencing a bit of
a renaissance of late), yet nowhere has it played a more prominent role – and perhaps nowhere has
its importance been more unrecognized – than in its role in supporting the Russian state and Russia's
current place in world affairs.
And while much attention has been paid to the growing authoritarianism of the Kremlin and on the
support for Putin's regime on the part of the Russian oligarchs whom Putin has enriched through his
crony capitalism, little has been paid to the equally critical role of the Russian Orthodox Church
in helping to shape Russia's current system, and in supporting Putin's regime and publicly conflating
the mission of the Russian state under Vladimir Putin's leadership with the mission of the Church.
Putin's move in close coordination with the Russian Orthodox Church to sacralize the Russian national
identity has been a key factor shaping the increasingly authoritarian bent of the Russian government
under Putin, and strengthening his public support, and must be understood in order to understand
Russia's international behavior.
The close relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the Russian state based upon
a shared, theologically-informed vision of Russian exceptionalism is not a new phenomenon. During
the days of the Czar, the Russian ruler was seen as God's chosen ruler of a Russian nation tasked
with representing a unique set of value embodied by Russian Orthodoxy, and was revered as "the Holy
Orthodox Czar". Today, a not dissimilar vision of Russian exceptionalism is once again shared by
the ROC and the Kremlin, and many Russians are beginning to see Vladimir Putin in a similar vein
– a perception encouraged both by Putin and by the Church, each of which sees the other as a valuable
political ally and sees their respective missions as being interrelated.
... ... ...
When Putin came to power he shrewdly noted the ROC's useful role in boosting nationalism and the
fact that it shared his view of Russia's role in the world, and began to work toward strengthening
the Church's role in Russian society. Early in his presidency the Russian Duma passed a law returning
all church property seized during the Soviet era (which act alone made the ROC one of the largest
landholders in Russia). Over the past decade and a half, Putin has ordered state-owned energy firms
to contribute billions to the rebuilding of thousands of churches destroyed under the Soviets, and
many of those rich oligarchs surrounding him are dedicated supporters of the ROC who have contributed
to the growing influence of the church in myriad ways. Around 25,000 ROC churches have been built
or rebuilt since the early 1990′s, the vast majority of which have been built during Putin's rule
and largely due to his backing and that of those in his close circle of supporters. Additionally,
the ROC has been given rights that have vastly increased its role in public life, including the right
to teach religion in Russia's public schools and the right to review any legislation before the Russian
Duma.
The glue that holds together the alliance between Vladimir Putin and the ROC, and the one that
more than any other explains their mutually-supporting actions, is their shared, sacralized vision
of Russian national identity and exceptionalism. Russia, according to this vision, is neither Western
nor Asian, but rather a unique society representing a unique set of values which are believed to
be divinely inspired. The Kremlin's chief ideologue in this regard is Alexander Dugin (see a good
summary of the historical roots of Dugin's philosophy and of his impact on the Russian government
here.) According to this vision of the relationship between church, state, and society, the state
dominates, the ROC partnering with the state, and individuals and private organizations supporting
both church and state. This has provided the ideological justification for Putin's crackdown on dissent,
and the rationale behind the Church's cooperation with the Kremlin in the repression of civil society
groups or other religious groups which have dissenting political views. And the ROC's hostility toward
the activities in Russia of other religious groups have dovetailed with that of Putin, who views
independent religious activity as a potential threat to his regime.
Internationally, Russia's mission is to expand its influence and authority until it dominates
the Eurasian landmass, by means of a strong central Russian state controlling this vast territory
and aligned with the ROC as the arm of the Russian nation exercising its cultural influence. This
vision of Russian exceptionalism has met with broad resonance within Russia, which goes a long way
to explaining Putin's sky high polling numbers. Putin has successfully been able both to transfer
to himself the social trust placed by most Russians in the ROC and has also to wrap himself in the
trappings of almost a patron saint of Russia. The conflict between Russia and the West, therefore,
is portrayed by both the ROC and by Vladimir Putin and his cohorts as nothing less than a spiritual/civilizational
conflict. If anyone thought Europe's wars over religion were finished in 1648, the current standoff
with Russia illustrates that that is not the case.
"... A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating
the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. ..."
"... All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation
of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities,
committed even in the name of God and of religion. ..."
"... We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical
and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all
too apparent. ..."
"... If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be
a slave to the economy and finance. ..."
"... At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures young
people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same culture
presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family ..."
Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your
own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity,
to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend
and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common
good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as
a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those
in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care
for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.
... ... ...
All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation
of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities,
committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms
of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive
to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required
to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while
also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another
temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good
or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds
which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization
which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy
without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants
and murderers is the best way to take their place. That is something which you, as a people, reject.
...We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical
and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are
all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments
and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as
one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.
The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished
so much good throughout the history of the United States. The complexity, the gravity and the urgency
of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another,
with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.
In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening
society. It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for
it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each
society. Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery,
born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social
consensus.
...If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot
be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling
need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which
sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests,
its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in
this effort.
... ... ...
The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts, especially
in its causes. I know that many Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem.
It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth.
The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the
spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and
sustainable. "Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world.
It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees
the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good" (Laudato Si', 129).
This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote
in order to "enter into dialogue with all people about our common home" (ibid., 3). "We need a conversation
which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots,
concern and affect us all" (ibid., 14).
In Laudato Si', I call for a courageous and responsible effort to "redirect our steps" (ibid.,
61), and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.
I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States – and this
Congress – have an important role to play. Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies,
aimed at implementing a "culture of care" (ibid., 231) and "an integrated approach to combating poverty,
restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature" (ibid., 139). "We have
the freedom needed to limit and direct technology" (ibid., 112); "to devise intelligent ways of .
. . developing and limiting our power" (ibid., 78); and to put technology "at the service of another
type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral" (ibid., 112). In
this regard, I am confident that America's outstanding academic and research institutions can make
a vital contribution in the years ahead.
... ... ...
...At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures
young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same
culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family.
"... 1.TiSA would "lock in" the privatization of services – even in cases where private service
delivery has failed – meaning governments can never return water, energy, health, education or other
services to public hands. ..."
"... 2.TiSA would restrict signatory governments' right to regulate stronger standards in the public's
interest. For example, it will affect environmental regulations, licensing of health facilities and
laboratories, waste disposal centres, power plants, school and university accreditation and broadcast
licenses. ..."
"... 3.TiSA would limit the ability of governments to regulate the financial services industry,
at a time when the global economy is still struggling to recover from a crisis caused primarily by financial
deregulation. More specifically, if signed the trade agreement would: ..."
"... 4. TiSA would ban any restrictions on cross-border information flows and localization requirements
for ICT service providers. A provision proposed by US negotiators would rule out any conditions for
the transfer of personal data to third countries that are currently in place in EU data protection law.
In other words, multinational corporations will have carte blanche to pry into just about every facet
of the working and personal lives of the inhabitants of roughly a quarter of the world's 200-or-so nations.
..."
"... 5. Finally, TiSA, together with its sister treaties TPP and TTIP, would establish a new global
enclosure system, one that seeks to impose on all 52 signatory governments a rigid framework of international
corporate law designed to exclusively protect the interests of corporations, relieving them of financial
risk and social and environmental responsibility. In short, it would hammer the final nail in the already
bedraggled coffin of national sovereignty. ..."
"... So, not to be snarky or anything but when does the invasion of Uruguay begin. ..."
"... In the US, corporations largely have replaced government since WWII or so, or at least pretend
to offer the services that a government might provide. ..."
"... Neoliberalism that we have now as a dominant social system is a flavor of corporatism. If so,
it is corporations which now represent the most politically powerful actors. They literally rule the
country. And it is they who select the president, most congressmen and Senators. Try to ask yourself
a question: to what political force Barak "change we can believe in" Obama serves. ..."
"... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of
the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place"
..."
"... This is such a huge, huge, vital issue. Privatisation of public assets has to rank as one of
the highest crimes at the government level. It is treason, perhaps the only crime for which i wouldn't
object capital punishment. ..."
"... What's more, we now have some 40 years of data showing that privatisation doesn't work. surely,
we can organise and successfully argue that privatisation has never worked for any country any time.
There needs to be an intellectual assault on privatisation discrediting it forever. ..."
Often referred to as the Switzerland of South America, Uruguay is long accustomed to doing things
its own way. It was the first nation in Latin America to establish a welfare state. It also has an
unusually large middle class for the region and unlike its giant neighbors to the north and west,
Brazil and Argentina, is largely free of serious income inequality.
Two years ago, during José Mujica's presidency, Uruguay became the first nation to legalize marijuana
in Latin America, a continent that is being ripped apart by drug trafficking and its associated violence
and corruption of state institutions.
Now Uruguay has done something that no other semi-aligned nation on this planet has dared to do:
it has rejected the advances of the global corporatocracy.
The Treaty That Must Not Be Named
Earlier this month Uruguay's government decided to end its participation in the secret negotiations
of the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA). After months of intense pressure led by unions and other
grassroots movements that culminated in a national general strike on the issue – the first of its
kind around the globe – the Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez bowed to public opinion and left the
US-led trade agreement.
Despite – or more likely because of – its symbolic importance, Uruguay's historic decision has
been met by a wall of silence. Beyond the country's borders, mainstream media has refused to cover
the story.
This is hardly a surprise given that the global public is not supposed to even know about TiSA's
existence, despite – or again because of – the fact that it's arguably the most important of the
new generation of global trade agreements. According to WikiLeaks, it "is the largest component of
the United States' strategic 'trade' treaty triumvirate," which also includes the Trans Pacific Partnership
(TPP) and the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP).
TiSA involves more countries than TTIP and TPP combined: The United States and all 28 members
of the European Union, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel,
Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea,
Switzerland, Taiwan and Turkey.
Together, these 52 nations form the charmingly named "Really Good Friends of Services" group,
which represents almost 70% of all trade in services worldwide. Until its government's recent u-turn
Uruguay was supposed to be the 53rd Good Friend of Services.
TiSA Trailer
TiSA has spent the last two years taking shape behind the hermetically sealed doors of highly
secure locations around the world. According to the agreement's provisional text, the document is
supposed to remain confidential and concealed from public view for at least five years after being
signed. Even the World Trade Organization has been sidelined from negotiations.
But thanks to whistle blowing sites like WikiLeaks, the Associated Whistleblowing Press and Filtrala,
crucial details have seeped to the surface. Here's a brief outline of what is known to date (for
more specifics click
here,
here and
here):
1.TiSA would "lock in" the privatization of services – even in cases where private service
delivery has failed – meaning governments can never return water, energy, health, education or other
services to public hands.
2.TiSA would restrict signatory governments' right to regulate stronger standards in the public's
interest. For example, it will affect environmental regulations, licensing of health facilities and
laboratories, waste disposal centres, power plants, school and university accreditation and broadcast
licenses.
3.TiSA would limit the ability of governments to regulate the financial services industry,
at a time when the global economy is still struggling to recover from a crisis caused primarily by
financial deregulation. More specifically, if signed the trade agreement would:
Restrict the ability of governments to place limits on the trading of derivative contracts
- the largely unregulated weapons of mass financial destruction that helped trigger the 2007-08
Global Financial Crisis.
Bar new financial regulations that do not conform to deregulatory rules. Signatory governments
will essentially agree not to apply new financial policy measures which in any way contradict
the agreement's emphasis on deregulatory measures.
Prohibit national governments from using capital controls to prevent or mitigate financial
crises. The leaked texts prohibit restrictions on financial inflows – used to prevent rapid currency
appreciation, asset bubbles and other macroeconomic problems – and financial outflows, used to
prevent sudden capital flight in times of crisis.
Require acceptance of financial products not yet invented. Despite the pivotal role that new,
complex financial products played in the Financial Crisis, TISA would require governments to allow
all new financial products and services, including ones not yet invented, to be sold within their
territories.
4. TiSA would ban any restrictions on cross-border information flows and localization requirements
for ICT service providers. A provision proposed by US negotiators would rule out any conditions for
the transfer of personal data to third countries that are currently in place in EU data protection
law. In other words, multinational corporations will have carte blanche to pry into just about every
facet of the working and personal lives of the inhabitants of roughly a quarter of the world's 200-or-so
nations.
As I wrote in
LEAKED: Secret Negotiations to Let Big Brother Go Global, if TiSA is signed in its current form
– and we will not know exactly what that form is until at least five years down the line – our personal
data will be freely bought and sold on the open market place without our knowledge; companies and
governments will be able to store it for as long as they desire and use it for just about any purpose.
5. Finally, TiSA, together with its sister treaties TPP and TTIP, would establish a new global
enclosure system, one that seeks to impose on all 52 signatory governments a rigid framework of international
corporate law designed to exclusively protect the interests of corporations, relieving them of financial
risk and social and environmental responsibility. In short, it would hammer the final nail in the
already bedraggled coffin of national sovereignty.
A Dangerous Precedent
Given its small size (population: 3.4 million) and limited geopolitical or geo-economic clout,
Uruguay's withdrawal from TiSA is unlikely to upset the treaty's advancement. The governments of
the major trading nations will continue their talks behind closed doors and away from the prying
eyes of the people they are supposed to represent. The U.S. Congress has already agreed to grant
the Obama administration fast-track approval on trade agreements like TiSA while the European Commission
can be expected to do whatever the corporatocracy demands.
However, as the technology writer Glyn Moody
notes, Uruguay's defection – like the people of Iceland's refusal to assume all the debts of
its rogue banks – possesses a tremendous symbolic importance:
It says that, yes, it is possible to withdraw from global negotiations, and that the apparently
irreversible trade deal ratchet can actually be turned back. It sets an important precedent that
other nations with growing doubts about TISA – or perhaps TPP – can look to and maybe even follow.
Naturally, the representatives of Uruguay's largest corporations would agree to disagree. The
government's move was one of its biggest mistakes of recent years,
according to Gabriel Oddone, an analyst with the financial consultancy firm CPA Ferrere. It was
based on a "superficial discussion of the treaty's implications."
What Oddone conveniently fails to mention is that Uruguay is the only nation on the planet that
has had any kind of public discussion, superficial or not, about TiSA and its potentially game-changing
implications. Perhaps it's time that changed.
So, not to be snarky or anything but when does the invasion of Uruguay begin. Wondering:
don't they want to pay $750.00 per pill for what cost $13.85 the day before? Aren't they interested
in predatory capitalism? What is going on down there?
Jim Haygood, September 23, 2015 at 12:17 pm
Most symbolic is that the eighth round of multilateral trade negotiations under GATT (now WTO)
kicked off in Punta del Este, Uruguay in Sep. 1986.
It went into effect in 1995, and is still known as the Uruguay Round.
susan the other, September 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm
And will international corporations issue their own fiat; pass their own laws; and prosecute
their own genocide? Contrary to their group hallucinations, corporations cannot replace government.
And clearly, somebody forgot to tell them that capitalism, corporatism, cannot survive without
growth. The only growth they will achieve is raiding other corporations. They are more powerless
and vulnerable than they ever want to admit.
hunkerdown, September 23, 2015 at 8:13 pm
And will international corporations issue their own fiat; pass their own laws; and
prosecute their own genocide?
Sure. There's prior art. Company scrip, substance "abuse" policies, and Bhopal (for a bit
different definition of "prosecute").
In the US, corporations largely have replaced government since WWII or so, or at least
pretend to offer the services that a government might provide.
likbez, September 24, 2015 at 10:54 pm
They are more powerless and vulnerable than they ever want to admit.
You are dreaming. Neoliberalism that we have now as a dominant social system is a flavor
of corporatism. If so, it is corporations which now represent the most politically powerful
actors. They literally rule the country. And it is they who select the president, most congressmen
and Senators. Try to ask yourself a question: to what political force Barak "change we can
believe in" Obama serves.
As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) aptly noted:
"And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that
many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they
frankly own the place"
gordon, September 23, 2015 at 9:03 pm
The TISA has a history. It's really just a continuation of the MAI treaty which the OECD failed
to conclude back in the 1990s.
What I don't get is why all those countries want to sign up to these agreements. I can see
what is in it for the US elites, but how does it help these smaller countries?
likbez, September 24, 2015 at 10:43 pm
Elites of those small countries are now transnational. So in a way they represent the fifth
column of globalization. That explains their position: own profit stands before interests of
the country.
vidimi, September 24, 2015 at 4:19 am
This is such a huge, huge, vital issue. Privatisation of public assets has to rank as one
of the highest crimes at the government level. It is treason, perhaps the only crime for which
i wouldn't object capital punishment.
What's more, we now have some 40 years of data showing that privatisation doesn't work.
surely, we can organise and successfully argue that privatisation has never worked for any country
any time. There needs to be an intellectual assault on privatisation discrediting it forever.
"... Note the adjective " unfettered ". Anything that is not sanctioned by the rule of law is not good for anyone. The challenge today is extractive capitalism. Some of this can be addressed by tax policy. Bankruptcy law needs to be changed to hold liable those executives who take out excessive amounts of funds from an enterprize. Personal property needs need better protection. Existing environmental laws need to be enforced. ..."
"... My understanding is that Pope Francis (I am not Catholic) has spoken about the inherent unfairness of "unrestricted" capitalism. He has not denounced capitalism. His words are painstaking, accurately stated & precise. ..."
"... I like his moves, promoting climate change, making a point in visiting the poorest countries on Earth, and naming Capitalists as members of a greedy system, not capable of taking on the role of providing goods and services to the Needy, and of course, the Pontiff heaps religious obscenities upon the War Mongers, mainly in the West. I am going to give my Bible another chance, here's hoping . ..."
"... He seems to be pointing out a few realities. Which, as others have pointed out is causing much wriggling by those who have complete faith by the dollar in the sky. ..."
"... Of course all the corporate politicians both Republican and Democrat are going to oppose the Pope. Forget the politicians and let's see how the American people react. I expect the Pope will be warmly received as a man of empathy and humanity who shows concern for the poor. I hope that when he addresses congress he does not pull any of his punches. ..."
I do not mean to misquote him. Pope Francis is a good man, but before he lectures the US on
capitalism, he needs to remember that the Vatican bank has been embroiled in their own banking
scandals. I was raised Catholic. I do not have a good impression of the men who run the church.
They spend a lot of time asking for money, and I always wonder if they are spending it hiring
lawyers for pedophile priests. I like the Pope though. He seems better that the rest of the lot.
I think the tax exemptions for religions should be stopped. Religions spend too much time discriminating
against certain segments of society. I think they are wolves in sheep's clothing.
RoachAmerican 13 Jul 2015 20:19
Note the adjective " unfettered ". Anything that is not sanctioned by the rule of law is
not good for anyone. The challenge today is extractive capitalism. Some of this can be addressed
by tax policy. Bankruptcy law needs to be changed to hold liable those executives who take out
excessive amounts of funds from an enterprize. Personal property needs need better protection.
Existing environmental laws need to be enforced.
William Brown 13 Jul 2015 20:05
I imagine The Pope will say something about an 'eye of a needle'
brianboru1014 13 Jul 2015 19:52
Wall Street via the New York Times and the WS Journal is well on the way to denigrating this
man. Even though most Americans support him, these publications will do everything to belittle
him.
The US government gives "only" tax exempt status. On the other-hand, citizens of the US very
likely raise more money for the Catholic Church than the citizens of any other country.
Ken Barnes -> LivinVirginia 13 Jul 2015 19:30
My understanding is that Pope Francis (I am not Catholic) has spoken about the inherent
unfairness of "unrestricted" capitalism. He has not denounced capitalism. His words are painstaking,
accurately stated & precise. It helps no one in a discussion to change what another has said
& then attempt to debate the misquote.
Greenshoots -> goatrider 13 Jul 2015 19:29
And a shedload of other "purposes" as well:
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational,
scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports
competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its
generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged;
advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings,
monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating
prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community
deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
Richard Martin 13 Jul 2015 19:20
Francis really follows in the footsteps of the First Fisherman, radicalised in God's format
. I like his moves, promoting climate change, making a point in visiting the poorest countries
on Earth, and naming Capitalists as members of a greedy system, not capable of taking on the role
of providing goods and services to the Needy, and of course, the Pontiff heaps religious obscenities
upon the War Mongers, mainly in the West. I am going to give my Bible another chance, here's hoping
.
John Fahy 13 Jul 2015 19:16
He seems to be pointing out a few realities. Which, as others have pointed out is causing
much wriggling by those who have complete faith by the dollar in the sky.
goatrider -> LivinVirginia 13 Jul 2015 19:01
As it does every other religion----
TerryMcGee -> Magali Luna 13 Jul 2015 19:00
Up until this pope, I would have agreed with you. But this pope is different. In one step,
he has taken the papacy from being a major part of the problem to a major force for good. We can't
expect him to fix all the problems in the church and its doctrines - that's not the work of one
generation. But if he can play a major part in fixing the two massive world problems he has focussed
on - climate change and rampant capitalism - he will have done enough for one lifetime.
And I get the impression that he's only warming up....
LivinVirginia -> goatrider 13 Jul 2015 18:34
"The US government gives the Vatican nothing...".
Not quite. The US Government gives the Church tax-exemption.
David Dougherty 13 Jul 2015 18:13
Of course all the corporate politicians both Republican and Democrat are going to oppose
the Pope. Forget the politicians and let's see how the American people react. I expect the Pope
will be warmly received as a man of empathy and humanity who shows concern for the poor. I hope
that when he addresses congress he does not pull any of his punches.
Cooper2345 13 Jul 2015 17:59
I like the gift that Morales gave to the Pope, the crucifix over the hammer and sickle. It
shows the victory of Christianity over Soviet communism that one of Francis' predecessors helped
to shepherd. It's a great reminder of a wonderful triumph and reason to be thankful for the genius
of St. John Paul II.
The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, "Capital in
the Twenty-First Century," that rising wealth inequality was a natural result of free-market policies,
a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial
implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy.
Notable quotes:
"... The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, "Capital
in the Twenty-First Century," that rising wealth inequality was a natural result of free-market policies,
a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial
implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy. ..."
"... "Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy,"
he said on Wednesday. "It is a moral obligation. For Christians, the responsibility is even greater:
It is a commandment." ..."
"... "I'm a believer in capitalism but it comes in as many flavors as pie, and we have a choice
about the kind of capitalist system that we have," said Mr. Hanauer, now an outspoken proponent of redistributive
government ..."
"... "What can be done by those students, those young people, those activists, those missionaries
who come to my neighborhood with the hearts full of hopes and dreams but without any real solution for
my problems?" he asked. "A lot! They can do a lot. ..."
ASUNCIÓN, Paraguay - His speeches can blend biblical fury with apocalyptic doom. Pope Francis
does not just criticize the excesses of global capitalism. He compares them to the "dung of the devil."
He does not simply argue that systemic "greed for money" is a bad thing. He calls it a "subtle dictatorship"
that "condemns and enslaves men and women."
Having returned to his native Latin America, Francis has renewed his left-leaning critiques on
the inequalities of capitalism, describing it as an underlying cause of global injustice, and a prime
cause of climate change. Francis escalated that line last week when he made a
historic apology for the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church during the period of Spanish colonialism
- even as he called for a global movement against a "new colonialism" rooted in an inequitable economic
order.
The Argentine pope seemed to be asking for a social revolution.
"This is not theology as usual; this is him shouting from the mountaintop," said Stephen F. Schneck,
the director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic studies at Catholic University of
America in Washington.
The last pope who so boldly placed himself at the center of the global moment was John Paul II,
who during the 1980s pushed the church to confront what many saw as the challenge of that era, communism.
John Paul II's anti-Communist messaging dovetailed with the agenda of political conservatives eager
for a tougher line against the Soviets and, in turn, aligned part of the church hierarchy with the
political right.
Francis has defined the economic challenge of this era as the failure of global capitalism to
create fairness, equity and dignified livelihoods for the poor - a social and religious agenda that
coincides with a resurgence of the leftist thinking marginalized in the days of John Paul II. Francis'
increasingly sharp critique comes as much of humanity has never been so wealthy or well fed - yet
rising inequality and repeated financial crises have unsettled voters, policy makers and economists.
Left-wing populism is surging in countries immersed in economic turmoil, such as Spain, and,
most notably, Greece. But even in the United States, where the economy has rebounded, widespread
concern about inequality and corporate power are propelling the
rise of liberals like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts,
who, in turn, have pushed the Democratic Party presidential front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
to the left.
Even some free-market champions are now reassessing the shortcomings of unfettered capitalism.
George Soros, who made billions in the markets, and then spent a good part of it promoting the spread
of free markets in Eastern Europe, now argues that the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
"I think the pope is singing to the music that's already in the air," said Robert A. Johnson,
executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, which was financed with $50 million
from Mr. Soros. "And that's a good thing. That's what artists do, and I think the pope is sensitive
to the lack of legitimacy of the system."
Many Catholic scholars would argue that Francis is merely continuing a line of Catholic social
teaching that has existed for more than a century and was embraced even by his two conservative predecessors,
John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Leo XIII first called for economic justice on behalf of workers
in 1891, with his encyclical "Rerum Novarum" - or, "On Condition of Labor."
Mr. Schneck, of Catholic University, said it was as if Francis were saying, "We've been talking
about these things for more than one hundred years, and nobody is listening."
Francis has such a strong sense of urgency "because he has been on the front lines with real people,
not just numbers and abstract ideas," Mr. Schneck said. "That real-life experience of working with
the most marginalized in Argentina has been the source of his inspiration as pontiff."
Francis made his speech on Wednesday night, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, before nearly 2,000 social
advocates, farmers, trash workers and neighborhood activists. Even as he meets regularly with heads
of state, Francis has often said that change must come from the grass roots, whether from poor people
or the community organizers who work with them. To Francis, the poor have earned knowledge that is
useful and redeeming, even as a "throwaway culture" tosses them aside. He sees them as being at the
front edge of economic and environmental crises around the world.
In Bolivia, Francis praised cooperatives and other localized organizations that he said provide
productive economies for the poor. "How different this is than the situation that results when those
left behind by the formal market are exploited like slaves!" he said on Wednesday night.
It is this Old Testament-like rhetoric that some finding jarring, perhaps especially so in the
United States, where Francis will visit in September. His environmental encyclical, "Laudato Si',"
released last month, drew loud criticism from some American conservatives and from others who found
his language deeply pessimistic. His right-leaning critics also argued that he was overreaching and
straying dangerously beyond religion - while condemning capitalism with too broad a brush.
"I wish Francis would focus on positives, on how a free-market economy guided by an ethical framework,
and the rule of law, can be a part of the solution for the poor - rather than just jumping from the
reality of people's misery to the analysis that a market economy is the problem," said the Rev. Robert
A. Sirico, president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, which advocates
free-market economics.
Francis' sharpest critics have accused him of being a Marxist or a Latin American Communist, even
as he opposed communism during his time in Argentina. His tour last week of Latin America began in
Ecuador and Bolivia, two countries with far-left governments. President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who
wore a Che Guevara patch on his jacket during Francis' speech, claimed the pope as a kindred spirit
- even as Francis seemed startled and caught off guard when Mr. Morales gave him a wooden crucifix
shaped like a hammer and sickle as a gift.
Francis' primary agenda last week was to begin renewing Catholicism in Latin America and reposition
it as the church of the poor. His apology for the church's complicity in the colonialist era received
an immediate roar from the crowd. In various parts of Latin America, the association between the
church and economic power elites remains intact. In Chile, a socially conservative country, some
members of the country's corporate elite are also members of Opus Dei, the traditionalist Catholic
organization founded in Spain in 1928.
Inevitably, Francis' critique can be read as a broadside against Pax Americana, the period of
capitalism regulated by global institutions created largely by the United States. But even pillars
of that system are shifting. The World Bank, which long promoted economic growth as an end in itself,
is now increasingly focused on the distribution of gains, after the Arab Spring revolts in some countries
that the bank had held up as models. The latest generation of international trade agreements includes
efforts to increase protections for workers and the environment.
The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, "Capital
in the Twenty-First Century," that rising wealth inequality was a natural result of free-market policies,
a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial
implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy.
Mr. Piketty roiled the debate among mainstream economists, yet Francis' critique is more unnerving
to some because he is not reframing inequality and poverty around a new economic theory but instead
defining it in moral terms. "Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human
labor is not mere philanthropy," he said on Wednesday. "It is a moral obligation. For Christians,
the responsibility is even greater: It is a commandment."
Nick Hanauer, a Seattle venture capitalist, said that he saw Francis as making a nuanced point
about capitalism, embodied by his coinage of a "social mortgage" on accumulated wealth - a debt to
the society that made its accumulation possible. Mr. Hanauer said that economic elites should embrace
the need for reforms both for moral and pragmatic reasons. "I'm a believer in capitalism but
it comes in as many flavors as pie, and we have a choice about the kind of capitalist system that
we have," said Mr. Hanauer, now an outspoken proponent of redistributive government policies
like a higher minimum wage.
Yet what remains unclear is whether Francis has a clear vision for a systemic alternative to the
status quo that he and others criticize. "All these critiques point toward the incoherence of the
simple idea of free market economics, but they don't prescribe a remedy," said Mr. Johnson, of the
Institute for New Economic Thinking.
Francis acknowledged as much, conceding on Wednesday that he had no new "recipe" to quickly change
the world. Instead, he spoke about a "process of change" undertaken at the grass-roots level.
"What can be done by those students, those young people, those activists, those missionaries
who come to my neighborhood with the hearts full of hopes and dreams but without any real solution
for my problems?" he asked. "A lot! They can do a lot. "You, the lowly, the exploited, the poor
and underprivileged, can do, and are doing, a lot. I would even say that the future of humanity is
in great measure in your own hands."
"...He said he supported their efforts to obtain "so elementary and undeniably necessary a right
as that of the three "Ls": land, lodging and labour"."
"...he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the devil", and said poor countries
should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap labour for developed countries.
"
"..."Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change," the pope
said, decrying a system that "has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for
social exclusion or the destruction of nature"."
"...The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence
of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain 'free trade' treaties, and the imposition of measures
of 'austerity' which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor"
"...A lot of us are awaiting the 3rd WW, between Russia and the US, between China and the US, between
the West and the East, while the war is on. ... Is it work of Capitalism? I think that capitalism
in it's modern form lies near this war, and both are made by the same people."
"...Still, the subject of my comment was not the predominance of Christians, but how much poverty
exists in this predominantly Christian nation. They ignore the most fundamental teachings they
profess to believe--the admonitions of Jesus to feed, clothe, and generally help the poor."
"...There is a reason the US has over 900 bases across the world, and that is to insure its business
interests."
"...An economic system is not a matter of either-or. Those who profit from "Laissez Faire" capitalism
like to push the idea that the only alternative is communism. Pope Francis is obviously a proponent
of a "mixed economy" as most people in the US on the left are. He is attacking "unbridled capitalism"
not an adequately regulated free-market economy."
"...Animal farm is not about the failure of either Communism or Fascism....it is a commentary on
the corruption of power; not a uniquely Communist problem. The machinations of politics also feature
quite heavily...divide and rule, propaganda, double standards and the use of language to achieve
ones aims...these are abuses of power that both the left and the right have been guilty of. Hitler's
Germany was Fascist (right wing extremism), Stalin's Russia was Communist (left wing extremism)..."
Pope Francis has urged the downtrodden to change the world economic order, denouncing a
"new colonialism" by agencies that impose austerity programs and calling for the poor to have the
"sacred rights" of labor, lodging and land.
In one of the longest, most passionate and sweeping speeches of his pontificate, the Argentine-born
pope used his visit to Bolivia
to ask forgiveness for the sins committed by the Roman Catholic church in its treatment of native
Americans during what he called the "so-called conquest of America".
The pontiff also demanded an immediate end to what he called the "genocide" of Christians taking
place in the Middle East and beyond, describing it as a third world war.
"Today we are dismayed to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our
brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus," Pope Francis
said.
"In this third world war, waged piecemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide
is taking place, and it must end."
Quoting a fourth century bishop, he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the
devil", and said poor countries should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap
labour for developed countries.
Repeating some of the themes of his
landmark encyclical Laudato Si on the environment last month, Francis said time was running out
to save the planet from perhaps irreversible harm to the ecosystem.
Pope Francis shakes hands with a mining worker's leader watched by Bolivia's president
Evo Morales, right, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Photograph: Rodrigo Abd/AP
Francis made the address in the city of Santa Cruz to participants of the second
world meeting of popular movements, an international body that brings together organisations
of people on the margins of society, including the poor, the unemployed and peasants
who have lost their land. The Vatican hosted the first meeting last year.
He said he supported their efforts to obtain "so elementary and undeniably necessary a right
as that of the three "Ls": land, lodging and labour".
His speech was preceded by lengthy remarks from the left-wing Bolivian president
Evo Morales, who wore
a jacket adorned with the face of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. He was executed
in Bolivia in 1967 by CIA-backed Bolivian troops.
"Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change," the pope
said, decrying a system that "has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern
for social exclusion or the destruction of nature".
"This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, labourers find it intolerable,
communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable. The earth itself – our sister, Mother
Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable," he said in an hour-long speech
that was interrupted by applause and cheering dozens of times.
Since his election in 2013, the first pope from Latin America has often spoken out in defence
of the poor and against unbridled capitalism but the speech in Santa Cruz was the most comprehensive
to date on the issues he has championed.
Francis' previous attacks on capitalism have prompted stiff criticism from politicians and commentators
in the United States, where he is due to visit in September.
The pontiff appeared to take a swipe at international monetary organisations such as the IMF and
the development aid policies by some developed countries.
"No actual or established power has the right to deprive peoples of the full exercise of their
sovereignty. Whenever they do so, we see the rise of new forms of colonialism which seriously
prejudice the possibility of peace and justice," he said.
"The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence
of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain 'free trade' treaties, and the imposition of measures
of 'austerity' which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor," he said.
Last week, Francis called on European authorities to keep human dignity at the centre of debate
for a solution to the economic crisis in Greece.
He defended labor unions and praised poor people who had formed cooperatives to create jobs where
previously "there were only crumbs of an idolatrous economy".
In one of the sections on colonialism, he said:
"I say this to you with regret: many grave sins were committed against the native peoples of
America in the name of God."
He added: "I humbly ask forgiveness, not only for the offences of the church herself, but
also for crimes committed against the native peoples during the so-called conquest of America.
"There was sin and an abundant amount of it."
The audience gave Francis a standing ovation when he put on a yellow miner's hat that was given
to him at the end of his speech.
The pope made his speech at the end of his first full day in Bolivia, where he arrived on Wednesday.
On Thursday morning he said a mass for hundreds of thousands of people and said that everyone had
a moral duty to help the poor, and that those with means could not wish they would just "go away".
Francis praised Bolivia's social reforms to spread wealth under Morales. On Friday, he will visit
Bolivia's notoriously violent Palmasola prison.
The pope
looked bemused on Wednesday night when Morales handed him one of the more unusual gifts he has
received: a sculpted wooden hammer and sickle – the symbol of communism – with a figure of a crucified
Christ resting on the hammer.
Francis leaves on Friday for Paraguay, the last stop on his "homecoming" trip.
The Pope didn't actually say "unbridled capitalism is the dung of the devil" did he?
So why is that the headline of this piece?
valeronfreza 10 Jul 2015 08:46
Actually, I find one of his thoughts really interesting. A lot of us are awaiting the 3rd WW,
between Russia and the US, between China and the US, between the West and the East, while the
war is on. The whole civilized world takes part in this mess, the thing is that this war looks
different from what we're used to see. I mean, we get information, made by those, who wants us
to see it different, like something, that happening far away, though it's dangerous as hell.
Is it work of Capitalism? I think that capitalism in it's modern form lies near this war,
and both are made by the same people.
cblyth79 10 Jul 2015 08:41
he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the devil"
He has hit the nail on the head. This is everything that is wrong with society. Every decision
is taken with regards to making as much money as possible. However, the great irony is that even
if people do make money, their constant desire for more means they are never happy or fulfilled.
Meanwhile, socially and environmentally we suffer greatly due to this ultimately fruitless pursuit
of as much money as possible.
PM782_ -> Greenshoots 10 Jul 2015 08:40
Generally speaking, you are right of course.
I have very little time for virgin men in silly hats & dresses, carrying crucifixes and expecting
everyone to take them seriously when history shows us they cannot be trusted to act in an ethical
way, and will (as always) be more concerned about amassing money and influence than doing any
good in the world.
The whole thing is ludicrous and you should be ashamed that you believe in it. It is really
astonishing.
Greenshoots -> Drew Layton 10 Jul 2015 08:39
Atheist trope. One could as easily say "Religion compels unreasonable people to do reasonable
things".
Westonboy -> pol098 10 Jul 2015 08:37
I'm happy to salute the personal contributions you make but, of course, the computer that you
will have used to write or test your software is a product of capitalism.
Also, most of the the goods you recycle or give away are no doubt the products of capitalism.
Anti-capitalists don't seem to have any alternative method of wealth creation.
EnglishChapin 10 Jul 2015 08:26
In the article:
Quoting a fourth century bishop, he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the
devil"
In the headline:
"Unbridled capitalism is the 'dung of the devil', says Pope Francis"
kycol1 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 08:24
As a Unitarian/Universalist I am equally, if not more, wary of that practice. Francis, however,
is a public figure who has the right to express his opinion. While he was definitely speaking
to a Catholic audience, he was not giving his words the weight of a Papal Encyclical. Also, it
is the accepted and expected belief of Catholics that the Pope directs their thinking as far as
faith goes. I do not see his words being a act of forcing his will on me, personally. All public
figures have the right to express their opinion on that subject. I also believe that regulation
should go further than dealing with "negative externalities" unless you view the financial crisis
of 2008 as a negative externality . While the causes of the crisis were complex and varied, lax
regulatory oversight during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations played a role in creating the
conditions for it.
Why do you want poor people to rise up? On what sense? Revolution to topple world governments,
what's next? What kind of governmental system will we apply to ensure law and order? Will it be
one world government by the Vatican?
I'm glad you set everyone straight on this. We were all thinking capitalism is an economic
and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners
for profit, rather than by the state. But clearly capitalism involves greed for money, exploitation
and environmental destruction. The very fact you've attempted to pick at this shows you're missing
the overarching point. The Pope is criticizing how our unregulated "socioeconomic system" - which
was capitalism the last time I looked - for being responsible for ruining society, enslaving men
and women and destroying human fraternity. All of which is pretty spot on. Excuse me for having
to clarify this for you.
citizen_1111 10 Jul 2015 07:48
Wouldn't it be great if newspapers like the Guardian printed the truth, rather than spin. The
pope did not say that "unbridled capitalism is the dung of devil". Here's the actual paragraph.
It's nothing like the Guardian's deceptive headline.
Today, the scientific community realizes what the poor have long told us: harm, perhaps irreversible
harm, is being done to the ecosystem. The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being
brutally punished.
And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea
called "the dung of the devil". An unfettered pursuit of money rules.
The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people's
decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society,
it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one
another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home.
So he's actually referring to greed for money - a moral sin .... not capitalism, which is basically
meritocratic mechanism of funding businesses.
HobbesianWorld -> Drew Layton 10 Jul 2015 07:41
Wrong, it's a predominantly Christian nation. Christians don't own it. Under the Constitution,
all beliefs in matters of religion are equal.
Still, the subject of my comment was not the predominance of Christians, but how much poverty
exists in this predominantly Christian nation. They ignore the most fundamental teachings they
profess to believe--the admonitions of Jesus to feed, clothe, and generally help the poor.
Capitalism isn't a sacred arm of Christianity, yet many (most?) Christians tend to favor Wall
Street's gluttony and greed while millions of children live in poverty. Is that what we should
see in a "Christian" nation? It's the epitome of hypocrisy.
PM782_ 10 Jul 2015 07:33
The guy in charge of 1 billion plus devout catholics, with all the riches of the Vatican, preaches
to us about how excessive capitalism is a bad thing.
This pope seems more reasonable than his predecessors however until he actually DOES something
that makes the world a better place and in some way makes up for the history of atrocious behavior
that the Catholic church has engaged in, I'm simply not interested.
It is strange though, seeing how many people are hoodwinked by a few choice words, when the
organization he represents has been an utter blight on humanity since it began.
heretoeternity -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 07:32
There is a reason the US has over 900 bases across the world, and that is to insure its business
interests.
Laurence W 10 Jul 2015 07:18
Devout capitalists/corporatists may not see the symmetry between John Paul II's defiance of
the bankruptcy of unbridled Communism and Francis's defiance of the bankruptcy of unfettered Capitalism.
They cling to their irrational faith (and that is what it is) in Adam Smith's "invisible hand."
The collapse of Communism does not somehow validate Capitalism. It seems Capitalism's true believers
must be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st. Century.
ideation2020 -> PeterAB12 10 Jul 2015 07:11
In the West there is a marked reduction in family size since about 1965. There are also far
more women at work, the workforce has adapted to almost full attendance of female workers. We
generally have accommodated an increase of 70% by reducing family size and equally as important
is the accommodation and full attendance of single a and" won't marry" adults.
SmileyFace2 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 07:10
But Capitalism has resulted in a Plutocracy which leads to rule by the top 1%. So it is not
quite a simple as you seem to think hence the need for a mixed economy.
HobbesianWorld 10 Jul 2015 07:08
While I wouldn't put it that way, the Pope is correct that unfettered capitalism is the major
source of injustice, especially the injustice of poverty.
It's a source of dark humor for me to hear Christians call the U.S. a "Christian nation" even
as they fight to maintain and enhance the cause of poverty--unbridled corporatism; profit over
humanity, wealth over justice and selfishness over honor.
Brian Milne -> Kevin Lim 10 Jul 2015 06:59
How much time have you spent in South America? I spent 18 years going back and forth as part
of my job, must admit I have not spoken to a Liberation Theology priest (he was actually a Jesuit
originally) since October. So perhaps I am just a little bit out of synch.
Life paths include being allowed to express one's sexuality openly and not risk excommunication
and denunciation by the church, to be allowed to have abortions and use contraception without
being told that you will go to Hell, to be allowed to 'formally' leave the church (some countries
still require religion on official document) and to follow political streams that the church condemns
as unchristian to name but just a few. By using the pressure of condemnation in the afterlife
people are to this day controlled by fear.
Sure nobody is obliged to put money in the dish but too many still fear the stigma of not doing
so. If this man can end that then it would be a job well done, but he will not, will he?
cblyth79 -> Manjush 10 Jul 2015 06:51
I agree that overpopulation is a problem, but to me the real problem is the capitalist consumerism
of first-world countries and the damage this is causing to the planet. Even if the populations
of third-world countries doubled they would not get anywhere near the CO2 that we produce. And
that's not even to mention the fact that we have caused climate change and they haven't. To blame
overpopulation is to out the blame on third-world countries, when it should be squarely on us.
VivF -> dysro1 10 Jul 2015 06:50
Animal farm is not about the failure of either Communism or Fascism....it is a commentary on
the corruption of power; not a uniquely Communist problem. The machinations of politics also feature
quite heavily...divide and rule, propaganda, double standards and the use of language to achieve
ones aims...these are abuses of power that both the left and the right have been guilty of. Hitler's
Germany was Fascist (right wing extremism), Stalin's Russia was Communist (left wing extremism)...
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- Lord Acton
Drew -> Layton 10 Jul 2015 06:48
Yay! Religion has done something that isn't rape, muder, burning at the stake, ripping people's
breasts off, implement, beheading, shooting people on beaches, blowing things up, being homophobic,
sexist, racist or generally being a complete twat! Let's all jump up and down and burn a pilot!
YAY!
Kathy -> Foulds 10 Jul 2015 06:42
We are in very new times....Pope Francis is not afraid to challenge the status quo...Alleluia.
Tony Menezes 10 Jul 2015 06:24
The national interest of the unbridled capitalists has sidelined morality and justice. The
third world war has started albeit piecemeal.
This is a strong wake up call from someone that must be listened to.
Greenshoots -> rgrabman 10 Jul 2015 06:23
I can only speak for the UK where I have yet to find a Catholic friend who is not immensely
supportive of what the Pope has to say, whatever prominent Tory Catholics may have to say. Catholics
on the whole tend to vote Labour.
If you want to see a precursor to what the Pope is now saying, read the Catholic bishops document
"The common good" from 1996:
"As at the end of the 19th century, Catholic Social Teaching is concerned to protect the poor
and vulnerable from the chill winds of economic forces. The defeat of Communism should not mean
the triumph of unbridled capitalism."
"The Catholic doctrine of the common good is incompatible with unlimited freemarket, or laissez-faire,
capitalism ...".
Unconstituted -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 06:22
Massively disagree with that bit about him being a non-scientist etc.
If skeptics are still unsure after all the science that has been thrown at them, then perhaps
they aren't influenced that way. They follow figures that they personally respect.
And the Pope has a huge following. I am certain that he will have given a lot of people pause
for thought recently.
Like many here, as an atheist, I'm no fan of the guy. But causes like social justice, climate
change etc need more than just reams of studies. It needs PR.
Greenshoots -> clogexpat 10 Jul 2015 06:17
Which is incorrect because the left is not, and never has been, an identifiable tribe in British
politics.
I agree that many people are not tribal about being left wing. They are willing to partner with
people whom they disagree with on some issues but where there is a common cause.
However, you just have to read many of the posts in this thread to see that, for many other people,
it is a form of tribal allegiance because they, in response to the Pope saying something they
probably do agree with, they cannot refrain from attacking him on unrelated issues. They are not
interested in supporting the common cause.
Longasyourarm -> MaximTS 10 Jul 2015 06:15
Well spotted but many here are in it for the opportunity to exercise their demons of hatred,
bigotry and racism. Most don't even read the article and jump right to the comments in their haste
to slag off Catholics, the Pope, Religion in general. I suppose it is still better than invasion
of other countries and stealing their stuff, isn't it Tony?
domrice 10 Jul 2015 06:13
Finally, a pontiff brave enough to enunciate the core values of Jesus Christ. Oh that the world
had political leaders who weren't shameless slaves to the moneylenders.
discreto -> SmileyFace2 10 Jul 2015 06:11
That is because the Free Trade is not Fair Trade, this is what Pope Francis is talking about.
Capitalism is Free Trade it is not Fair Trade with the People who work to ensure the Goods are
there to trade are not getting what is a Fair and Just Living wage, they are being used by the
Corporations who make Millions out of their hard work. I support Pope Francis and his Courage
in speaking up for the People in developing Countries who are made to depend on Capitalism against
their will. At last he is the Pope who is acknowledging the sins of the Church both past and present,
with a strong voice of Apology. It would be good if he could sit down with The First Nations of
America to take part in their native Ritual of Smudging from Smoke of burnt Herbs and grasses
for forgiveness and Peace. I pray for Pope Francis's Protection.
kycol1 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 06:02
An economic system is not a matter of either-or. Those who profit from "Laissez Faire" capitalism
like to push the idea that the only alternative is communism. Pope Francis is obviously a proponent
of a "mixed economy" as most people in the US on the left are. He is attacking "unbridled capitalism"
not an adequately regulated free-market economy.
ID1780902 10 Jul 2015 05:55
Why so many negative comments? Here we have an extremely high profile figure publicly rallying
people all over the world to help with climate change, and to oppose some of the excesses of capitalism.
Regardless of what you think of the Catholic church, many people will listen to what he says,
and take it very seriously. If he only changes the mind of a single climate-change denier that
would be enough, but I think he will do a lot more than that, particularly in the US.
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor
of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with http://neweconomicperspectives.org
" rel="nofollow">New Economic Perspectives ..."
"... laissez faire. ..."
"... The Gospel According to St. Lloyd Blankfein ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with
http://neweconomicperspectives.org" rel="nofollow">New Economic Perspectives
A New York Times
article entitled "Championing Environment, Francis Takes Aim at Global Capitalism" quotes a conventional
Harvard economist, Robert N. Stavins. Stavins is enraged by Pope Francis' position on the environment
because the Pope is "opposed to the world economic order." The rage, unintentionally, reveals why
conventional economics is the most dangerous ideology pretending to be a "science."
Stavins' attacks on the Pope quickly became personal and dismissive. This is odd, for Pope Francis'
positions on the environment are the same as Stavins' most important positions. Stavins' natural
response to the Pope's views on the environment – had Stavin not been an economist – would have been
along the lines of "Pope Francis is right, and we urgently need to make his vision a reality."
Stavins' fundamental position is that there is an urgent need for a "radical restructuring" of
the markets to prevent them from causing a global catastrophe. That is Pope Francis' fundamental
position. But Stavins ends up mocking and trying to discredit the Pope.
I was struck by the similarity of Stavins response to Pope Francis to the rich man's response
to Jesus. The episode is reported in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in similar terms. I'll use Matthew's
version (KJAV), which begins at 19:16 with the verse:
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may
have eternal life?
Jesus responds:
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but
if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
The young rich man wants to know which commandments he needs to follow to gain eternal life.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
The young, wealthy man is enthused. The Rabbi that he believes has the secret of eternal life
has agreed to personally answer his question as to how to obtain it. He passes the requirements the
Rabbi lists, indeed, he has met those requirements since he was a child.
But then Jesus lowers the boom in response to the young man's question on what he "lacks."
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
We need to "review the bidding" at this juncture. The young man is wealthy. He believes that Jesus
knows the secret to obtaining eternal life. His quest was to discover – and comply – with the requirement
to achieve eternal life. The Rabbi has told him the secret – and then gone well beyond the young
man's greatest hopes by offering to make him a disciple. The door to eternal life is within the young
man's power to open. All he needs to do is give all that he owns to the poor. The Rabbi goes further
and offers to make the young man his disciple. In exchange, the young man will secure "treasure in
heaven" – eternal life and a place of particular honor for his sacrifice and his faith in Jesus.
Jesus' answer – the answer the young man thought he wished to receive more than anything in the
world – the secret of eternal life, causes the young man great distress.
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
The young man rejects eternal life because he cannot bear the thought of giving his "great possessions"
to "the poor." Notice that the young man is not evil. He keeps the commandments. He is eager to do
a "good thing" to gain eternal life. He has "great possessions" and is eager to trade a generous
portion of his wealth as a good deed to achieve eternal life. In essence, he is seeking to purchase
an indulgence from Jesus.
But Jesus' response causes the young, wealthy man to realize that he must make a choice. He must
decide which he loves more – eternal life or his great possessions. He is "sorrowful" for Jesus'
response causes him to realize that he loves having his great possessions for his remaining span
of life on earth more than eternal life itself.
Jesus offers him not only the means to open the door to eternal life but the honor of joining
him as a disciple. The young man is forced by Jesus' offer to realize that his wealth has so fundamentally
changed him that he will voluntarily give up his entry into eternal life. He is not simply "sorrowful"
that he will not enter heaven – he is "sorrowful" to realize that heaven is open to him – but he
will refuse to enter it because of his greed. His wealth has become a golden trap of his own creation
that will damn him. The golden bars of his cell are invisible and he can remove them at any time
and enter heaven, but the young man realizes that his greed for his "great possessions" has become
so powerful that his self-created jail cell has become inescapable. It is only when Jesus opens the
door to heaven that the young man realizes for the first time in his life how completely his great
possessions have corrupted and doomed him. He knows he is committing the suicide of his soul – and
that he is powerless to change because he has been taught to value his own worth as a person by the
extent of his great possessions.
Jesus then makes his famous saying that captures the corrupting effects of great wealth.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter
into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than
for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
The remainder of the passage is of great importance to Luther's doctrine of "justification by
faith alone" and leads to Jesus' famous discussion of why "the last shall be first," (in which his
anti-market views are made even more explicit) but the portions I have quoted are adequate to my
purpose.
Pope Francis' positions on the environment and climate are the greatest boon that Stavin has received
in decades. The Pope, like Stavins, tells us that climate change is a disaster that requires urgent
governmental action to fix. Stavins could receive no more joyous news. Instead of being joyous, however,
Stavins is sorrowful. Indeed, unlike the wealthy man who simply leaves after hearing the Rabbi's
views, Stavins rages at and heaps scorn on the prelate, Pope Francis. Stavins' email to the New
York Times about the Pope's position on climate change contains this double ideological smear.
The approach by the pope, an Argentine who is the first pontiff from the developing world,
is similar to that of a "small set of socialist Latin American countries that are opposed to the
world economic order, fearful of free markets, and have been utterly dismissive and uncooperative
in the international climate negotiations," Dr. Stavins said.
Stavins' work explicitly states that the "free markets" he worships are causing "mass extinction"
and a range of other disasters. Stavins' work explicitly states that the same "free markets" are
incapable of change – they cause incentives so perverse that they are literally suicidal – and the
markets are incapable of reform even when they are committing suicide by laissez faire.
That French term is what Stavins uses to describe our current markets. Pope Francis agrees with each
of these points.
Pope Francis says, as did Jesus, that this means that we must not worship "free markets," that
we must think first of the poor, and that justice and fairness should be our guides to proper conduct.
Stavins, like the wealthy young man, is forced to make a choice. He chooses "great possessions."
Unlike the wealthy young man, however, Stavins is enraged rather than "sorrowful" and Stavins lashes
out at the religious leader. He is appalled that an Argentine was made Pope, for Pope Francis holds
views "that are opposed to the world economic order [and] fearful of free markets." Well, yes. A
very large portion of the world's people oppose "the Washington Consensus" and want a very different
"world economic order." Most of the world's top religious leaders are strong critics of the "world
economic order."
As to being "fearful of free markets," Stavins' own work shows that his use of the word "free"
in that phrase is not simply meaningless, but false. Stavins explains that the people, animals, and
plants that are the imminent victims of "mass extinction" have no ability in the "markets" to protect
themselves from mass murder. They are "free" only to become extinct, which makes a mockery of the
word "free."
Similarly, Stavins' work shows that any sentient species would be "fearful" of markets that Stavins
proclaims are literally suicidal and incapable of self-reform. Stavins writes that only urgent government
intervention that forces a "radical restructuring" of the markets can save our planet from "mass
extinction." When I read that I believed that he was "fearful of free markets."
We have all had the experience of seeing the "free markets" blow up the global economy as recently
as 2008. We saw there, as well, that only massive government intervention could save the markets
from a global meltdown. Broad aspects of the financial markets became dominated by our three epidemics
of "accounting control fraud."
Stavins is appalled that a religious leader could oppose a system based on the pursuit and glorification
of "great possessions." He is appalled that a religious leader is living out the Church's mission
to provide a "preferential option for the poor." Stavins hates the Church's mission because it is
"socialist" – and therefore so obviously awful that it does not require refutation by Stavins. This
cavalier dismissal of religious beliefs held by most humans is revealing coming from a field that
proudly boasts the twin lies that it is a "positive" "science." Theoclassical economists embrace
an ideology that is antithetical to nearly every major religion.
Stavins, therefore, refuses to enter the door that Pope Francis has opened. Stavins worships a
system based on the desire to accumulate "great possessions" – even though he knows that the markets
pose an existential threat to most species on this planet and even though he knows that his dogmas
increasingly aid the worst, most fraudulent members of our society to become wealthy through forms
of "looting" (Akerlof and Romer 1993) that make other people poorer. The result is that Stavins denounces
Pope Francis rather than embracing him as his most valuable ally.
Conclusion: Greed and Markets Kill: Suicide by Laissez Faire
The old truths remain. The worship of "great possessions" wreaks such damage on our humanity that
we come to love them more than life itself and act in a suicidal fashion toward our species and as
mass destroyers of other species. Jesus' insight was that this self-corruption is so common, so subtle,
and so powerful that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich
man to enter into the kingdom of God." Today, he would probably use "economist" rather than "camel."
Theoclassical economists are the high priests of this celebration of greed that Stavins admits
poses the greatest threat to life on our planet. When Pope Francis posed a choice to Stavins, he
chose to maintain his dogmatic belief in a system that he admits is suicidal and incapable of self-reform.
The reason that the mythical and mystical "free markets" that Stavins worships are suicidal and incapable
of self-reform even when they are producing "mass extinction" is that the markets are a system based
on greed and the desire to obtain "great possessions" even if the result is to damn us and life on
our planet.
Adam Smith propounded the paradox that greed could lead the butcher and baker (in a village where
everyone could judge reputation and quality) to reliably produce goods of high quality at the lowest
price. The butcher and baker, therefore, would act (regardless of their actual motivations) as if
they cared about their customers. Smith observed that the customer of small village merchant's products
would find the merchant's self-interest a more reliable assurance of high quality than the merchant's
altruism.
But Stavins makes clear in his writing that this is not how markets function in the context of
"external" costs to the environment. In the modern context, the energy markets routinely function
in a manner that Stavins rightly depicts as leading to mass murder. Stavins so loves the worship
of the quest for "great possessions" that he is eager to try to discredit Pope Francis as a leader
in the effort to prevent "mass extinction" (Stavins' term) – suicide by laissez faire.
(No, I am not now and never was or will be a Catholic.)
The Pope's recent comments stirred an old memory from when I was a child, for some reason.
Growing up in England in the 1980's, it didn't escape even my childish notice that the series
"Dr. Who" was often a vehicle for what would now been deemed outrageously left wing thinking and
ideas.
One such episode was
The Pirate Planet. The plot's premise was that a race had created a mechanism for consuming
entire planets at a time, extracting mineral wealth from the doomed planet being destroyed in
the process and using energy and resources for the benefit of a tiny ruling elite with the remnants
being offered as trinkets for the masses.
A small subset of the evil race was subliminally aware of what was happening. One of the lines
spoken by a character really stuck in my mind, when he said after the reality of their existence
was explained to him "so… people die… to make us rich?"
At the time, it was intended I think more as an allegory on the exploitation of South African
gold miners under apartheid than as a general critique of capitalism by the prevailing socialist
thinking in Britain in that era (it seems impossible now for me to believe how left wing Britain
was in the late 1970s and even into the very early 1980s, but that is indeed the case; it feels
like it was a completely different country. Perhaps it was…). No wonder the Thatcher government
aggressively targeted the BBC (who produced the show), seeing it, probably rightly, as a hotbed
of Trotskyite ideology.
But the point the show was trying to make is as valid now as it was then and is the same point
the Pope Francis is making. A great deal of our material wealth and affluence is built on others'
suffering. It is wrong. And the system which both perpetrates the suffering and the people who
benefit from it needs to change. Us turkeys are going to have to vote for Christmas.
Nice post, Clive. But I thought Brits ate goose at Christmas, and Americans eat turkey at Thanksgiving
;-)
Yes, where have all the leftists gone? Is Cornel West the only one "left" in America? Forty
years ago I was moving to the Right, in reaction to the Left. The Cold War was still on, patriotism
et al.
The current paradigm is insane … so nature will not allow it to continue much longer. G-d not
so much. The US today is qualitatively different than it was in the 70s.
Trotsky was one of the first people to understand Hitler. Stalin not so much. Our current crop
of elder pundits of Neoliberalism … originally were Jewish trotskyites back in the 60s. Neoliberalism
was perhaps pragmatic back then, but has outlived its usefulness.
The overweening arrogance of the Thatcherites and the neoclassical ideologues that are in evidence
at Harvard is their insistence that what they peddle is not a set of values, but a "science",
and that their set of values is the only set of values even worth considering (TINA). The Pope's
job is to remind us all of another possible set of values and organizing principles. No one said
you have to believe in them. But they have a right to be on the table when we collectively chose
what kind of world we want to live in.
"All he needs to do is give all that he owns to the poor." Bill Black
No. He is to sell all he owns but Jesus does not say that he is to then give away ALL the money.
The rich guy's problem is his possessions, not money. Note that Matthew, another rich guy, did
not give away all his money yet he was a disciple of Jesus.
As for "free markets", what is free market about government-subsidized/privileged banks?
something didn't read right about this piece to me. hard to put my finger on it, but it came
across as a bit hypocritical and a lot bitter. apart from that, the style is eclectic and the
thoughts are scrambled all over the place. more a rant than a coherent argument.
It all began when I arrived. After travelling some 48 hours from South Africa to Southern
California, carrying films and books for the conference, I was not even met at the airport.
So I took a taxi. But nobody met me at the place where I was supposed to stay. I stood on the
street for more than one hour.
in this passage he sounds like he suffers from affluenza. in those poor but righteous third
world countries, he is treated like a rockstar. in the rotten US, he is dismayed at the lack of
attention. although no doubt he has a point, it smacks a bit of entitlement.
not vltchek's best work, but then again, he did admit to writing most of it on the plane.
it seems impossible now for me to believe how left wing Britain was in the late 1970s
and even into the very early 1980s, but that is indeed the case; it feels like it was a completely
different country.
True. And greed, as described by Bill Black. has no limits.
"Theoclassical economists are the high priests of this celebration of greed that Stavins
admits poses the greatest threat to life on our planet. When Pope Francis posed a choice to
Stavins, he chose to maintain his dogmatic belief in a system that he admits is suicidal and
incapable of self-reform. The reason that the mythical and mystical "free markets" that Stavins
worships are suicidal and incapable of self-reform even when they are producing "mass extinction"
is that the markets are a system based on greed and the desire to obtain "great possessions"
even if the result is to damn us and life on our planet."
This is an extremely important point. We cannot combat neoliberal ideology as if it were simply
a set of rational assumptions, albeit flowing from flawed premises. No, it is a religious
dogma of greed, set up to combat all of the more communitarian and gentle schools of
religious thought– including the Christianity of Pope Francis, or the environmentalism of St.
Francis, the patron saint of ecologists.
Good to see that someone else pulls out the "rich young man" bit occasionally. Not many Christians
I've talked to seem to be aware of it, much less of the implications. Good on ya'.
fundamentalists like to take things in the bible literally, but they know that jesus
didn't mean it when he said that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"
Maybe he didn't realize that his possessions owned him, but the rich young man knew that *something*
was wrong. For all his virtue and good works, he could feel things weren't right inside himself.
Pope Francis probably hasn't read The Gospel According to St. Lloyd Blankfein. If
he had read it, he would know that investment bankers are doing God's work.
The Pope
has warned of an "unprecedented destruction of ecosystems" and "serious consequences for all
of us" if humanity fails to act on climate change, in his encyclical on the environment, published
by the Vatican on Thursday.
Senior Catholic figures in the US and UK
have said the Pope's central message is: what sort of world do we want to leave for future
generations?
The UN secretary general, the World Bank president, plus the heads of the UN climate talks
and the UN environment programme have all welcomed the encyclical, along with scores of charities
and faith groups.
Church leaders will brief members of Congress on the encyclical on Thursday, and the White
House on Friday on the encyclical. "It is our marching orders for advocacy,"
said Joseph Kurtz, the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishop
Cardinal Peter Turkson, the pope's top official on social and justice issues, flatly rejected
arguments by some conservative politicians in the US that the pope ought to stay out of science.
"Saying that a pope shouldn't deal with science sounds strange since science is a public domain.
It is a subject matter that anyone can get in to," Turkson said at a press conference on Thursday.
The pontiff's upcoming document is being hailed as a major intervention in the climate change
debate – but what exactly is an encyclical?
In an apparent reference to comments by Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush, who said
he did not take economic advice from the pope, Turkson said that politicians had the right to
disregard Francis's statement, but said it was wrong to do so based on the fact that the pope
was not a scientist.
"For some time now it has been the attempt of the whole world to kind of try to de-emphasise
the artificial split between religion and public life as if religion plays no role," he said.
Then, quoting an earlier pope, he said the best position was to "encourage dialogue between faith
and reason".
The secretary-general welcomes the papal encyclical released today by His Holiness
Pope Francis which
highlights that climate change is one of the principal challenges facing humanity, and that it
is a moral issue requiring respectful dialogue with all parts of society. The secretary-general
notes the encyclical's findings that there is "a very solid scientific consensus" showing significant
warming of the climate system and that most global warming in recent decades is "mainly a result
of human activity".
Ban called on governments to "place the global common good above national interests and to adopt
an ambitious, universal climate agreement" at the UN climate summit in Paris this December.
There are shades of the Pope's own language there. In the encyclical, he says: "International
[climate] negotiations cannot make significant progress due to positions taken by countries which
place their national interests above the global common good".
US church leaders said they saw the message as an urgent call for dialogue
and action – one they intend to amplify on social media and in the pulpit.
"It is our marching orders for advocacy," Joseph Kurtz, the president of the US Conference of
Catholic Bishops and the Archbishop of Louisville. "It really brings about a new urgency for us."
Church leaders will brief members of Congress on Thursday, and the White House tomorrow on the
encyclical.
"I don't think he is presenting a blue print for saying this is exactly a step by step recipe,"
Kurtz said. "He is providing a framework and a moral call as a true moral leader to say take seriously
the urgency of this matter."
Here's a selection of some more US faith group reaction:
Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire, Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Stockton:
This document written for all people of good will challenges institutions and individuals to
preserve and respect creation as a gift from God to be used for the benefit of all.
Rabbi Marvin Goodman, Rabbi in Residence, Jewish Community Federation and Endowment Fund, San
Francisco:
I'm inspired and grateful for the Pope's high profile leadership and commitment to environmental
justice.
Imam Taha Hassane, Islamic Center of San Diego:
Local and National Muslim Leadership support policies that both halt environmental degradation
and repair that which has already occurred. We stand with any leader, secular or spiritual,
who is willing to speak out against this issue.
Cardinal Vincent Nichols in the UK has echoed
US Archbishop Joseph Edward Kurtz in his view of what the Pope's central message is: what sort
of world do we want to leave for future generations to inherit?
The Press Association reports:
Speaking at Our Lady & St Joseph's Catholic Primary School, in Poplar, east London, against the
backdrop of the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf, Cardinal Vincent Nichols said one of the key messages
of the document was asking "what kind of world we want to leave to those who come afterwards".
The pope's message challenged the idea that infinite material progress was possible, with more
goods and more consumption, that "we have to have the latest phone", said the cardinal, who is
head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.
The US House of Representatives'
Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition says – in an apparent reference to climate denial
on the US right – that "the political will of many is still askew" when it comes to tackling global
warming. It hopes the Pope's encyclical might change that:
For those unmoved by the science of climate change, we hope that Pope Francis' encyclical demonstrates
the virtue and moral imperative for action. Today's announcement further aligns the scientific
and moral case for climate action, yet the political will of many is still askew. The time to
act on climate is now, and failure to do so will further damage the planet, its people, and our
principles.
Pope Francis's guidance as a pastor and a teacher shines a light on the moral obligation we all
share to address the climate crisis that transcends borders and politics. This Encyclical underscores
the need for climate action not just to protect our environment, but to protect humankind and
the most vulnerable communities among us. The vision laid out in these teachings serves as inspiration
to everyone across the world who seeks a more just, compassionate, and healthy future.
In case you don't have enough time to read the 100+ page encyclical itself (the length varies depending
on the language and font size of the versions kicking around),
Some more reaction from UK charities on how governments meeting in Paris later this year should listen
to the Pope.
Adriano Campolina, chief executive of ActionAid International, said:
The Pope's message highlights the important links between climate change, poverty and overconsumption.
They are part of the same problem and any lasting solution to climate change must tackle these
fundamental issues.
The powerful truth in Pope Francis' message reaches far beyond the Catholic
Church or climate campaigners. Action on climate requires both environmental and social justice.
As negotiators work on a climate deal for Paris, our leaders must show the same moral and political
courage that Pope Francis has.
Christian conservation group A Rocha said: "national governments should follow the Pope's example
and take 'meaningful action' on climate change".
One of the most senior figures in the US Catholic church, Joseph Edward Kurtz, Archbishop of Louisville,
has been speaking at a US press conference. He said that that perhaps the central message of the
encyclical is: what kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us?
Here are some
highlights from Kurtz:
It's really a very beautiful and very extensive treatment of what Pope Francis has called our
common home.
...
The Pope over and over again says that care for the things of this Earth is necessarily bound
with care for one another and especially those who are poor. He calls it an interdependency.
...
He speaks on very indivudal choices as well as the public sphere
...
Over and over again he talks about the world as a gift
...
He uses a phrase he's used very often: to reject a throwaway culture.
...
He talks about very specific things, about slums in which people are forced to live, the lack
of clean water, about the consumerism mentality.
And that perhaps this is the centre of his message: what kind of world do we want to leave
to those who come after us?
...
Our pope is speaking with a very much pastor's voice and with a deep respect for the role of
science.
Three essential areas that our Catholic community is being called to being involved in:
1) to advocate, a local, national and global level, to advocate for the common good. We know
that faith if done well, actually enriches public life. And we know that technology tells us what
we can do, but we need moral voices that tell us what we should do
2) [the video cut out at this point so I'm afraid I missed his second point]
3) The use of our resources, in whole we build buildings, should honour the Earth
Here's the Pope himself on that issue of what we leave future generations:
Leaving an inhabitable planet to future generations is, first and foremost, up to us. The issue
is one which dramatically affects us, for it has to do with the ultimate meaning of our earthly
sojourn.
We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace
of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet's capacity that our
contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those
which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world. The effects of the present
imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action, here and now.
Summary
The Pope
has warned of an "unprecedented destruction of ecosystems" and "serious consequences for all
of us" if humanity fails to act on climate change, in his encyclical on the environment, published
by the Vatican on Thursday
The
pontiff said that the world should phase out coal in favour of gas, while renewable energy
technology scales up
The heads of the
UN climate talks and the
UN environment programme have said the Pope's intervention should act as a "clarion call"
for governments meeting in a bid to work out a climate change deal at a summit in Paris later
this year
Today's release of Pope Francis' first encyclical should serve as a stark reminder to all of us
of the intrinsic link between climate change and poverty. We know the scientific, business and
economic case for action to combat climate change and I welcome the pope's emphasis on our moral
obligation to act.
He added:
The pope's encyclical comes at a pivotal moment in the lead up to December's Paris meeting on
climate change.
The World Council of Churches welcomes Pope Francis' encyclical which catalyses what churches
and ecumenical organizations have been doing for decades on caring for the earth and climate justice
issues. By affirming human induced climate change and its impacts on the poorest and most vulnerable
communities, the Encyclical is an important call to urgently act as individuals, citizens and
also at the international level to effectively respond to the climate crisis.
Dr. Steven Timmermans, executive director of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, said:
We affirm Pope Francis' moral framing of the threats posed by climate change. We have too many
brothers and sisters around the world living on the edge of poverty whose livelihoods are threatened-and
too many little ones in our congregations set to inherit a dangerously broken world-to believe
otherwise. For too long the church has been silent about the moral travesty of climate change.
Today, the Pope has said, 'Enough is enough,' and the Christian Reformed Church welcomes his voice.
Sister Pat McDermott, president of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, said:
We welcome Pope Francis' critique of the current, dominant economic model that prioritizes the
market, profit and unharnessed consumption and regards Earth as a resource to be exploited.
Rev. Mitch Hescox, president of the US-based Evangelical Environmental Network, which lobbies American
politicians on environmental issues, welcomed the Pope's encyclical. He
said:
It's time to make hope happen by fuelling the unstoppable clean energy transition, stopping the
ideological battles, and working together.
Creating a new energy economy that benefits all and addresses climate change is not about a
political party but living as a disciple of Jesus Christ. We urge all people of good will, especially
fellow Christian conservatives to read and study these timely words from Pope Francis.
The New York Times' Justin Gillis says (fairly, in my opinion) that the Pope is more cautious on
the science behind climate change than many scientists.
...amid all his soaring rhetoric, did the pope get the science right?
The short answer from
climate and environmental scientists is that he did, at least to the degree possible in a religious
document meant for a broad audience. If anything, they say, he may have bent over backward to
offer a cautious interpretation of the scientific facts.
For example, a substantial body of published science says that human emissions have caused
all the global warming that has occurred over the past century. Yet in his letter, Francis does
not go quite that far, citing volcanoes, the sun and other factors that can influence the climate
before he concludes that "most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration
of greenhouse gases" released mainly by human activity.
The world's most authoritative body on climate science, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, found in
its landmark report last year that global warming is "unequivocal" and humanity's role in causing
it is "clear".
In some places, cooperatives are being developed to exploit renewable sources of energy which
ensure local self-sufficiency and even the sale of surplus energy. This simple example shows that,
while the existing world order proves powerless to assume its responsibilities, local individuals
and groups can make a real difference.
Bob Perciasepe of US thinktank Center for Climate and Energy Solutions,
has blogged on the unique role the Pope can play in the climate change arena and how he might
influence American minds:
Scientists, environmentalists, politicians, business executives, and military leaders have all
raised concerns for years about the real risks of climate change. But few individuals are as influential
as the pope. By calling on people to act on their conscience, Pope Francis provides a powerful
counterpoint to what has become a largely ideologically-driven debate, especially here in the
United States.
The publication of the Pope's encyclical is of enormous significance. He has shown great wisdom
and leadership. Pope Francis is surely absolutely right that climate change raises vital moral
and ethical issues. It is poor people around the world who are most vulnerable to the impacts
of climate change, such as an intensification of extreme weather events. And the decisions that
we make about managing the risks of climate change matter not only for us, but also for our children,
grandchildren and future generations.
He added:
Moral leadership on climate change from the Pope is particularly important because of the failure
of many heads of state and government around the world to show political leadership.
And here's what the Pope himself says about world leaders' failure to act on climate change and
environmental problems:
Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned
with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of
the negative impacts of climate change.
The pope's effort to sever the link between population growth and environmental deterioration
should not, however, detract from the importance of what else he has to say. This is the first encyclical
to be devoted entirely to environmental issues, though it is certainly not the first time a pope
has spoken out on the destruction of the environment.
As the encyclical notes, Paul VI first raised the issue as long ago as 1971, describing it as
a "tragic consequence" of uncontrolled human activity. Saint John Paul II and his successor, Benedict
XVI, inveighed against mankind's ill-treatment of nature – or as they viewed it, creation.
Far more explicitly than his predecessors, however, Francis heaps the blame on to the part of
humanity that is rich. He accepts that the poorer nations should "acknowledge the scandalous level
of consumption in some privileged sectors of their population and combat corruption more effectively."
They ought also to develop less pollutant sources of energy.
The Pope suggests that you can't care about nature and support abortion, which the Catholic church
strongly opposes:
Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with
the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other
vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human
embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?
The other elephant in the room is birth control and overpopulation, though the Pope seems to have
anticipated criticism on that. He takes the line,
supported by many environmentalists, that consumption is the problem, not overpopulation. The
encyclical says:
To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is
one way of refusing to face the issues.
The head of the UN's environment programme, Achim Steiner, has echoed
the UN's climate chief in saying today's text should be a clarion call for action.
This encyclical is a clarion call that resonates not only with Catholics, but with all of the
Earth's peoples. Science and religion are aligned on this matter: The time to act is now.
We
(UNEP) share Pope Francis' view that our response to environmental degradation and climate change
cannot only be defined by science, technology or economics, but is also a moral imperative. We
must not overlook that the world's poorest and most vulnerable suffer most from the changes we
are seeing. Humanity's environmental stewardship of the planet must recognise the interests of
both current and future generations.
Each year sees the disappearance of thousands of plant and animal species which we will never
know, which our children will never see, because they have been lost for ever. The great majority
become extinct for reasons related to human activity.
...
a sober look at our world shows that the degree of human intervention, often in the service
of business interests and consumerism, is actually making our earth less rich and beautiful, ever
more limited and grey, even as technological advances and consumer goods continue to abound limitlessly.
We seem to think that we can substitute an irreplaceable and irretrievable beauty with something
which we have created ourselves.
On GM
It is difficult to make a general judgement about genetic modification (GM) ... The risks involved
are not always due to the techniques used, but rather to their improper or excessive application
... This is a complex environmental issue
On water quality
One particularly serious problem is the quality of water available to the poor. Every day, unsafe
water results in many deaths and the spread of water-related diseases, including those caused
by microorganisms and chemical substances.
On fossil fuels
We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels – especially coal, but
also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas – needs to be progressively replaced without delay. Until
greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate
to choose the lesser of two evils or to find short-term solutions.
At the Vatican press conference, Peter Turkson, a Ghanian cardinal of the Catholic church, says US
climate sceptics are entitled to their view.
"The other big thing about Republicans and presidential figures saying they will not listen to
the Pope is that is their freedom, their freedom of choice," he said, in an apparent reference to
Jeb Bush (see
11:21).
He said "it's easy to say because the Pope is not a scientist he shouldn't talk about science",
and said "I would not attach much credibility" to those criticisms.
The pontiff included a personal handwritten note in his communication. It ended with a plea for help:
"United in the lord, and please do not forget to pray for me."
One recurring motif throughout the encyclical is a general scepticism or outright hostility to
technological solutions to environmental challenges, and to the role that big business should play
in tackling climate change.
For example:
Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these
problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things
and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others
...
To seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate
what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system.
He doesn't like carbon trading either. In this passage he seems to be referring to the only current
global carbon trading scheme, the
CDM:
The strategy of buying and selling "carbon credits" can lead to a new form of speculation which
would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide
a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no
way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply
become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors.
And some sections sound like they could have been ghostwritten by Guardian columnist George Monbiot:
Is it realistic to hope that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect
on the environmental damage which they will leave behind for future generations?
The Pope isn't just concerned about climate change. He has some very colourful turns of phrase about
other environmental problems, such as pollution and waste:
The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many
parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.
The Pope makes reference to the huge body of work by national science academies and international
bodies such as the IPCC on climate science:
A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming
of the climatic system.
He warns of serious consequences if we don't act on climate change:
If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an
unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.
As many studies have already pointed out, the Pope notes that the world's poor are expected to
suffer most from global warming:
It [climate change] represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its
worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor
live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence
are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing
and forestry.
The message brought an outpouring of support from environmental groups, climate scientists, and
leaders of all religions, eager to counter a series of pre-emptive attacks on the Pope from conservatives.
The response was a first glimpse of a vast and highly organised mobilisation effort around the
letter visit, and a papal visit to the US in September.
The Pope will get an another chance to exhort leaders to act – this time in person – when he addresses
both houses of Congress.
With that high profile visit in mind, campaigners argued the Pope's intervention had re-set the
parameters of the discussion surrounding climate change, from narrow political agenda to broader
morality. The Pope's message was above religion, they said.
"The Pope's message applies to all of us," said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense
Council. "He is imploring people of good will everywhere to honour our moral obligation to protect
future generations from the dangers of further climate chaos by embracing our ethical duty to act,"
she said.
Cafod, the Catholic charity went so far as to suggest that that was the Pope's design all along.
"The Pope has deliberately released the encyclical in a year of key UN moments that will affect
humanity," said Neil Thomas, director of advocacy. "He is reading the signs of his times and telling
us that the human and environmental costs of our current way of life are simply too high."
Ray Bradley, the climate scientist, said: "He has no political agenda. He speaks from the heart
(not the Heartland) with unimpeachable moral authority. Who else can address this issue without the
taint of politics? Moreover, Pope Francis has a particular responsibility to those without a voice
at the centres of power in affluent countries.
But the Pope's message is expected to resonate most strongly among the environmental campaigners
operating within the Church.
For activist priests and nuns, who have lobbied oil companies and called on their own parishes
to divest, the encyclical puts the Vatican's stamp of approval on years of effort, often at the sidelines.
That on its own has galvanised campaigners, said Sister Joan Brown, a Franciscan in New Mexico
who has worked on climate change for more than 20 years.
"I've never seen anything like this in the faith community or otherwise," she said.
The pope's message set off a flood of new activity that has been more than a year in the planning.
In deference to the Pope, mainstream environmental groups will be operating in the background.
"We've been asking environmental groups to hold back on this...so that the message isn't one that
would maybe cause more polarisation, rather than less," Sister Joan said.
But the Catholic church – and activist wings among other religious communities – are jumping in
to try and amplify thePope's message and build momentum for action on climate.
The archbishop's office in Atlanta signed up scientists and engineers to help parishes, and parishioners,
reduce their carbon footprint. The Bishop of Des Moines is planning to hold a press conference at
a wind farm.
The Evangelical Environmental Network also came out strongly behind the Pope.
More than 300 rabbis signed on to a letter calling on Jewish institutions and individuals to divest
from "carbon Pharaohs" or coal-based electric power, and buy wind power instead.
As Pope Francis reaffirms, climate change is an all-encompassing threat: it is a threat to our
security, our health, and our sources of fresh water and food ... I applaud the Pope for his strong
moral and ethical leadership. We need more of such inspired leadership. Will we see it at the
climate summit in Paris?
The Pope is right – climate change is a problem for all of humanity that is hitting the world's
poorest hardest. His words could and should add real urgency to efforts to protect people and
planet. World leaders meeting at the UN climate talks in Paris later this year should be in no
doubt that the world expects them to put aside short-term national interest and move us all closer
to a safer and more prosperous future.
Andrew Steer, president and chief executive of the US-based World Resources Institute:
The pope's message brings moral clarity that the world's leaders must come together to address
this urgent human challenge. This message adds to the global drumbeat of support for urgent climate
action. Top scientists, economists, business leaders and the pope can't all be wrong.
The encyclical is unimpressed by those who deny the science of climate change:
regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective,
not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist
attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference,
nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.
The pushback from Republican and the rest of the US right, where climate scepticism is a badge
of honour, has already begun. Jeb Bush, the Republican presidential candidate,
said yesterday: "I hope I'm not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home,
but I don't get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinal or my pope."
And as our US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg found out last week at a gathering
of US climate sceptics, the Pope's encyclical is at the top of their list of concerns.
Suzanne Goldenberg visits the Heartland Institute's conference in Washington, an annual gathering
of climate sceptics, to hear what delegates – including US senator James Inhofe and blogger Marc
Morano – think about the Pope's encyclical on the environment and climate change
Christiana Figueres, the UN's climate chief, says the Pope's intervention should act as a "clarion
call" for a strong deal at Paris:
Pope Francis' encyclical underscores the moral imperative for urgent action on climate change
to lift the planet's most vulnerable populations, protect development, and spur responsible growth.
This clarion call should guide the world towards a strong and durable universal climate agreement
in Paris at the end of this year. Coupled with the economic imperative, the moral imperative leaves
no doubt that we must act on climate change now.
Christiana Figueres. Photograph: Martin Godwin/Martin Godwin
But the Pope isn't very impressed by more than 20 years of UN climate talks. He says the annual
summits have produced "regrettably few" advances on efforts to cut carbon emissions and rein in global
warming. The encyclical says:
It is remarkable how weak international political responses have been. The failure of global summits
on the environment make it plain that our politics are subject to technology and finance. There
are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good
and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected.
John Schellnhuber, Angela Merkel's climate adviser and a leading climate change scientist, is punning
his way through a presentation at the encyclical's launch, "praying" his Powerpoint will work.
Of the encyclical, he said:
it is very unique in the sense that it brings together two strong powers in the world, namely
faith and moral and on the other reason and ingenuity. It's an environmental crisis but also a
social crisis. These two things together pose an enormouse challenge. Only if these two things
work together, faith and reason, can we overcome it
A spokesman for the Vatican told a packed press conference in the Vatican audience hall this morning
that in his 25 years there he has worked there, he has never seen as much prolonged, global and intense
anticipation for a single document, AP reports.
The press conference is being live-streamed on YouTube:
The more-than-100 page text is wide-ranging,
majoring on climate change, but also touching on pollution, biodiversity loss, the oceans, man's
modern relationship with nature, the dangers of relying on the markets and technology, and overconsumption.
The more than 190 countries involved in the international climate change will be keenly watching
the text too – it could have a big impact on the talks ahead of a
major summit in Paris later this year.
"... "Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption,
in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it," he adds.
..."
Pontiff condemns global warming as outgrowth of global consumerism
Pope Francis said human activity is the cause of climate change, which threatens the poor and
future generations.
Updated June 18, 2015 9:46 p.m. ET
772 COMMENTS
ROME- Pope Francis in his much-awaited encyclical on the environment offered a broad and uncompromising
indictment of the global market economy, accusing it of plundering the Earth at the expense of the
poor and of future generations.
In passionate language, the pontiff attributed global warming to human activity, blamed special
interests for holding back policy responses and said the global North owes the South "an ecological
debt."
The 183-page document, which Pope Francis addresses to "every person living on this planet," includes
pointed critiques of globalization and consumerism, which he says lead to environmental degradation.
"The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth," he writes.
The encyclical's severe language stirred immediate controversy, signaling the weight the pontiff's
stance could have on the pitched debate over how to respond to climate change.
"Economic powers continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be given
to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain," he writes. "As a result, whatever is fragile,
like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of the deified market, which become the
only rule."
The Vatican published the document, titled "Laudato Si" ("Be praised"), on Thursday. The official
release came three days after the online publication of a leaked version by an Italian magazine.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, had described the leaked Italian text as a
draft, but the final document, published in eight languages, differed only in minor ways, while the
pope's main points were identical. An encyclical is considered one of the most authoritative forms
of papal writing.
In the encyclical, Pope Francis wades into the debate over the cause of global warming, lending
high-profile support to those who attribute it to human activity.
A "very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming
of the climactic system," contributing to a "constant rise in the sea level" and an "increase of
extreme weather events," he writes.
"Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption,
in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it," he
adds.
While acknowledging natural causes for climate change, including volcanic activity and the solar
cycle, Pope Francis writes that a "number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming
in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity."
The pontiff goes on to argue that there is "an urgent need" for policies to drastically cut the
emission of carbon dioxide and other gases and promote the switch to renewable sources of energy.
Related Coverage
Five Things to Know About 'Laudato Si'
Latest Critic of Too-Big-To-Fail: Pope Francis
Past Encyclicals That Had an Impact on the World
'Laudato Si' in Full
Excerpts From Pope Francis' Encyclical on the Environment
On Global Warming, Pope Francis Is Clear but U.S. Catholics are Divided
Scientists Back Pope Francis on Global Warming
Pope Francis reminds us that our relationship to the natural world is about love, not just goods
and services
Who wants to see the living world destroyed? Who wants an end to birdsong, bees and coral reefs,
the falcon's stoop, the salmon's leap? Who wants to see the soil stripped from the land, the sea
rimed with rubbish?
Why are the defenders of the living world so ineffective? It is partly, of course, that everyone
is complicit; we have all been swept off our feet by the tide of hyperconsumption,
our natural greed excited, corporate propaganda chiming with a will to believe that there is no
cost. But perhaps
environmentalism is also afflicted by a deeper failure: arising possibly from embarrassment
or fear, a failure of emotional honesty.
'We have all been swept off our feet by the tide of hyperconsumption, our natural
greed excited, corporate propaganda chiming with a will to believe that there is no cost'.
I have asked meetings of green-minded people to raise their hands if they
became defenders of nature because they were worried about the state of their
bank accounts. Never has one hand appeared. Yet I see the same people base their
appeal to others on the argument that they will lose money if we don't protect
the natural world.
Such claims are factual, but they are also dishonest: we pretend that this is what animates us,
when in most cases it does not. The reality is that we care because we love. Nature appealed to
our hearts, when we were children, long before it appealed to our heads, let alone our pockets.
Yet we seem to believe we can persuade people to change their lives through the cold, mechanical
power of reason, supported by statistics.
I see the
encyclical by Pope Francis, which will be
published on Thursday, as a potential turning point. He will argue that not only the physical
survival of the poor, but also our spiritual welfare depends on the protection of the natural world;
and in both respects he is right.
I don't mean that a belief in God is the answer to our environmental crisis. Among Pope Francis's
opponents is the evangelical US-based Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has
written to him arguing that we have a holy duty to
keep burning fossil fuel, as "the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims
his handiwork". It also insists that exercising the dominion granted to humankind in Genesis means
tilling "the
whole Earth", transforming it "from wilderness to garden and ultimately to garden city".
There are similar tendencies within the Vatican.
Cardinal George Pell, its head of finance, currently immersed in a scandal
involving
paedophile priests in Australia, is a prominent climate change denier. His
lecture to the
Global Warming Policy Foundation was the usual catalogue of zombie myths
(discredited claims that keep resurfacing), nonsequiturs and outright garbage
championing, for example, the groundless claim that undersea volcanoes could
be responsible for global warming. There are plenty of senior Catholics seeking
to undermine the pope's defence of the living world, which could explain why
a draft of his encyclical was leaked. What I mean is that Pope Francis,
a man with whom I disagree profoundly on matters such as equal marriage and
contraception, reminds us that the living world provides not only material goods
and tangible services, but is also essential to other aspects of our wellbeing.
And you don't have to believe in God to endorse that view.
In his beautiful book
The Moth Snowstorm, Michael McCarthy suggests that a capacity to love the natural world, rather
than merely to exist within it, might be a uniquely human trait. When we are close to nature, we
sometimes find ourselves, as Christians put it, surprised by joy: "A happiness with an overtone
of something more, which we might term an elevated or, indeed, a spiritual quality."
He believes we are wired to develop a rich emotional relationship with nature. A large body of
research suggests that contact with the living world is essential to our psychological and physiological
wellbeing. (A
paper published this week, for example, claims that green spaces around city schools improve
children's mental performance.)
This does not mean that all people love nature; what it means, McCarthy proposes, is that there
is a universal propensity to love it, which may be drowned out by the noise that assails our minds.
As I've found while volunteering with the outdoor education charity Wide Horizons,
this love can be provoked almost immediately, even among children who have never visited the
countryside before. Nature, McCarthy argues, remains our home, "the true haven for our psyches",
and retains an astonishing capacity to bring peace to troubled minds.
Acknowledging our love for the living world does something that a library
full of papers on sustainable development and ecosystem services cannot: it
engages the imagination as well as the intellect. It inspires belief; and this
is essential to the lasting success of any movement.
Is this a version of the religious conviction from which Pope Francis speaks? Or could his religion
be a version of a much deeper and older love? Could a belief in God be a way of explaining and channelling
the joy, the burst of love that nature sometimes inspires in us? Conversely, could the hyperconsumption
that both religious and secular environmentalists lament be a response to
ecological boredom: the void that a loss of contact with the natural world leaves in our psyches?
Of course, this doesn't answer the whole problem. If the acknowledgement of love becomes the
means by which we inspire environmentalism in others, how do we translate it into political change?
But I believe it's a better grounding for action than pretending that what really matters to us
is the state of the economy. By being honest about our motivation we can inspire in others the passions
that inspire us.
For those who have decided to only read partial excerpts from the Pope's exhortation, I would
also encourage you to understand that the Pope's perspective on poverty is somewhat different
than our perspective on poverty.
In my travels to Haiti, the Caribbean, the Far East, and the Middle East, the true extent of
poverty becomes clear. Our perception of poverty, while real for those feeling pain and
deprivation, is significantly different than the poverty that the Pope is discussing.
This does not however alter his message. He is saying that as Catholics we have a
responsibility to place our faith above our material goods. Pope Francis is concerned about our
salvation, not our bank account. I would have it no other way from my spiritual leader.
When one places great value in material things, the focus is lost on how you can selflessly
help another. This is precisely the image of being a good parent in which the parent is more
concerned about their child than they are about themselves. Pope Francis is merely concerned
about his flock.
In a similar vein,
Thomas Jefferson, our third president, recognized the great threat in which a government
would attempt to be too strongly influenced by a religion. Thomas Jefferson understood that they
must be separate, as does Pope Francis.
The Pope's similarity with Thomas Jefferson is more significant than you may think. In our
founding principles, we already were a Judeo-Christian nation guided by our faith individually
because of our individual character. The government was influenced by the character of those
with faith and not by their religion directly. It is not a government of faith but a government
in which its leaders are influenced and guided by their faith.
... ... ..
Col. Frank Ryan, CPA, USMCR (Ret) and served in Iraq and briefly in Afghanistan and
specializes in corporate restructuring and lectures on ethics for the state CPA societies. He
has served on numerous boards of publicly traded and non-profit organizations. He can be reached
at [email protected] and twitter at @fryan1951.
Since the release of
Evangelii Gaudium there have been countless articles and commentary about the economic
portions of Pope Francis's Apostolic Exhortation. Some of the commentary has been downright bizarre,
such as Rush Limbaugh
denouncing the Pope as a Marxist, or Stuart Varney
accusing Francis of being a neo-socialist. American conservatives grumbled but dutifully denounced
a distorting media when Pope Francis seemed to go wobbly on homosexuality, but his criticisms of
capitalism have crossed the line, and we now see the Pope being criticized and even denounced from
nearly every rightward-leaning media pulpit in the land.
Not far below the surface of many of
these critiques one hears the following refrain: why can't the Pope just go back to talking about
abortion? Why can't we return the good old days of Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI and talk 24/7/365
about sex? Why doesn't Francis have the decency to limit himself to talking about Jesus and gays,
while avoiding the rudeness of discussing economics in mixed company, an issue about which he has
no expertise or competence?
There are subtle and brash versions of this plea. At "The Catholic Thing," Hadley Arkes
has penned
a characteristically elegant essay in which he notes that Francis is generally correct on teachings
about marriage and abortion, but touches on these subjects too briefly, cursorily and with unwelcome
caveats of sorts. At the same time, Francis goes on at length about the inequalities and harm caused
by free market economies, which moves Hadley to counsel the Pope to consult next time with Michael
Novak. The upshot-be as brief as the Gettysburg Address in matters pertaining to economics, and
loquacious as Edward Everett when it comes to erotics.
On the brash side there is Larry Kudlow,
who nearly hyperventilates when it comes to his disagreement with Pope Francis, accusing him
of harboring sympathies with Communist Russia and not sufficiently appreciating Ronald Reagan, Margaret
Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. (R. R. Reno, who is briefly allowed to get a word in edgewise,
wisely counseled Kudlow not to fight the last war-or, the one fought three wars ago, for that matter.)
Revealingly, Kudlow counsels the Pope to concentrate on "moral and religious reform," and that he
should "harp" instead on "morality, spiritualism and religiosity," while ceasing to speak about
matters economic. Similarly, Judge Napolitano, responding to a challenge from Stuart Varney on why
the Pope is talking about economics, responded: "I wish he would stick to faith and morals, on which
he is very sound and traditional."
These commentators all but come and out say: we embrace Catholic teaching when it concerns itself
with "faith and morals"-when it denounces abortion, opposes gay marriage, and urges personal charity.
This is the Catholicism that has been acceptable in polite conversation. This is a stripped-down
Catholicism that doesn't challenge fundamental articles of economic faith.
And it turns out that this version of Catholicism is a useful tool. It is precisely this portion
of Catholicism that is acceptable to those who control the right narrative because it doesn't truly
endanger what's most important to those who steer the Republic: maintaining an economic system premised
upon limitless extraction, fostering of endless desires, and creating a widening gap between winners
and losers that is papered over by mantras about
favoring equality of opportunity. A massive funding apparatus supports conservative Catholic
causes supporting a host of causes-so long as they focus exclusively on issues touching on human
sexuality, whether abortion, gay marriage, or religious liberty (which, to be frank, is intimately
bound up in its current form with concerns about abortion). It turns out that these funds are a
good investment: "faith and morals" allow us to assume the moral high ground and preoccupy the social
conservatives while we laugh all the way to the bank bailout.
The right's contretemps with Pope Francis has brought out into the open what is rarely mentioned
in polite company: most visible and famous Catholics who fight on behalf of Catholic causes in America
focus almost exclusively on sexual issues (as Pope Francis himself seemed to be pointing out, and
chastising, in his America interview),
but have been generally silent regarding a century-old tradition of Catholic social and economic
teaching. The meritocracy and economic elite have been a main beneficiary of this silence: those
most serious about Catholicism-and thus who could have brought to bear a powerful tradition of thinking
about economics that avoids both the radical individualistic presuppositions of capitalism as well
as the collectivism of socialism-have spent their energies fighting the sexual/culture wars, even
while Republican-Democratic ruling machine has merely changed driver seat in a limousine that delivers
them to ever-more exclusive
zip codes.
In the past several months, when discussing Pope Francis, the left press has at every opportunity
advanced a "narrative of rupture," claiming that Francis essentially is
repudiating nearly
everything that Popes JPII and Benedict XVI stood for. The left press and commentariat has celebrated
Francis as the anti-Benedict following his impromptu airplane interview ("who am I to judge?") and
lengthy interview with the Jesuit magazine America. However, in these more recent reactions
to Francis by the right press and commentariat, we witness extensive agreement by many Catholics
regarding the "narrative of rupture," wishing for the good old days of John Paul II and Benedict
XVI.
But there has been no rupture-neither the one wished for by the left nor feared by the right.
Pope Francis has been entirely consistent with those previous two Popes who are today alternatively
hated or loved, for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI spoke with equal force and power against
the depredations of capitalism. (JPII in the encyclical
Centesimus Annus and Benedict XVI in the encyclical
Caritas in Veritate.) But these encyclicals-more authoritative than an Apostolic Exhortation-did
not provoke the same reaction as Francis's critiques of capitalism. This is because the dominant
narrative about John Paul II and Benedict XVI had them pegged them as, well, Republicans. For the
left, they were old conservatives who obsessed with sexual matters; for the right, solid traditionalists
who cared about Catholicism's core moral teachings. Both largely ignored their social and economic
teachings, so focused were they on their emphasis on "faith and morals." All overlooked that, for
Catholics, economics is a branch of moral philosophy.
I think it is because of the left's "narrative of disruption" that the right is panicked over
Francis's critiques of capitalism. These Vatican criticisms-suddenly salient in ways they weren't
when uttered by JPII and Benedict-need to be nipped in the bud before they do any damage. Of course,
all along Catholic teaching has seen a strong tie between the radical individualism and selfishness
at the heart of capitalism and liberationist sexual practices, understanding them to be premised
on the same anthropological assumptions. (If you don't believe Catholics about this, just read Ayn
Rand.) While Hadley Arkes laments that Pope Francis did not speak at more length on sexual matters,
if one reads his criticisms of the depredations of capitalism with care, one notices that he uses
the same phrases with which he criticized abortion-namely, that abortion is but one manifestation
of "a throw-away culture,"
a phrase as well as in Evangelii Gaudium in his critique of capitalism (Section
53). If one attends carefully to Francis's criticisms of the economy's effects on the weak and
helpless, one can't help but perceive there also that he is speaking of the unborn as much as those
who are "losers" in an economy that favors the strong. Like John Paul and Benedict before him, Francis
discerns the continuity between a "throw-away" economy and a "throw-away" view of human life. He
sees the deep underlying connection between an economy that highlights autonomy, infinite choice,
loose connections, constant titillation, utilitarianism and hedonism, and a sexual culture that
condones random hook-ups, abortion, divorce and the redefinition of marriage based on sentiment,
and in which the weak-children, in this case, and those in the lower socio-economic scale who are
suffering a complete devastation of the family-are an afterthought.
The division of the fullness of Catholic thought in America has rendered it largely tractable
in a nation that was always suspicious of Catholics. Lockean America tamed Catholicism not by oppression
(as Locke thought would be necessary), but by dividing and conquering-permitting and even encouraging
promotion of its sexual teachings, albeit shorn of its broader social teachings. This co-opted the
full power of those teachings, directing the energy of social conservatives exclusively into the
sexual-culture wars while leaving largely untouched a rapacious economy that daily creates
few winners and more
losers while supporting a culture of sexual license and "throw-away" children. Without minimizing
the seriousness with which we need to take issues like abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty,
these are discrete aspects of an overarching "globalization of indifference" described by Francis.
However, we have been trained to treat them as a set of autonomous political issues that can be
solved by one or two appointments on the Supreme Court. Francis-like JPII and BXVI before him-has
upset the "arrangement." Rush and the gang are not about to go down without a fight. If only they
could get that damn Marxist to talk about sex.
It seems that, "a persistent shortfall on the demand side" is a euphemism for the fact that
half the population will remain near bankruptcy for quite sometime.
Pope Francis said two days ago
"To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others ... a globalization of indifference has
developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion
..."
One may consider the Pope less qualified to "pontificate" about technology than Prof. Krugman
who "tracks technology" and sees that "smart machines are getting much better at interacting
with the natural environment in all its complexity ... [and concluding] that a real transformative
leap is somewhere over the horizon" Pope Francis said,
"This epochal change has been set in motion by the enormous qualitative, quantitative,
rapid and cumulative advances occurring in the sciences and in technology, and by their
instant application in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge
and information, which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power."
"This epochal change" seems to be a reference to "fear and desperation, even in the so-called
rich countries" and to people forced to live "with precious little dignity".
The "anonymous kinds of power" could be a reference to "American Exceptionalism" - that connotes
business success to Americans and unbridled power to many developing countries.
The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry
of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide
crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack
of real concern for human beings.
His thoughts on income inequality are searing:
How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure,
but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue
to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality.
The pope's screed on "the economy of exclusion and inequality" will disappoint those who considers
themselves free-market capitalists, but they would do well to listen to the message. Francis gives
form to the emotion and injustice of post-financial-crisis outrage in a way that has been rare since
Occupy Wall Street disbanded. There has been a growing chorus of financial insiders – from the
late Merrill Lynch executive Herb Allison to organizations like
Better Markets – it's time for a change in how we approach capitalism. It's not about discarding
capitalism, or hating money or profit; it's about pursuing profits ethically, and rejecting the
premise that exploitation is at the center of profit. When 53% of financial executives say they
can't get
ahead without some cheating, even though they want to work for ethical organizations, there's
a real problem.
Unlike Occupy, which turned its rage outward, Pope Francis bolstered his anger with two inward-facing
emotions familiar to any Catholic-school graduate: shame and guilt, to make the economy a matter
of personal responsibility.
This is important. Income inequality is not someone else's problem. Nearly all of us are likely
to experience it. Inequality has been growing in the US since the 1970s. Economist Emmanuel Saez
found that the incomes of the top 1%
grew
by 31.4% in the three years after the financial crisis, while the majority of people struggled
with a disappointing economy. The other 99% of the population grew their incomes 0.4% during the
same period.
As a result, federal and state spending on social welfare programs has been forced to
grow to $1tn just to handle the volume of US households in trouble. Yet income inequality has
been locked out of of the mainstream economic conversation, where it is seen largely as a sideshow
for progressive bleeding hearts.
In the discussions of why the US is not recovering, economists often mention metrics like economic
growth and housing. They rarely mention the metrics that directly tell us we are failing our economic
goals, like
poverty
and starvation. Those metrics of income inequality tell an accurate story of the depth of our economic
malaise that new-home sales can't. One-fifth of Americans, or 47 million people, are on food stamps;
50% of children born to single mothers live in poverty; and over 13 million people are out of work.
Children are now not
likely to do as well as their parents did as downward mobility takes hold for the first time
in generations.
The bottom line, which Pope Francis correctly identifies, is that inequality is the biggest economic
issue of our time – for everyone, not just the poor. Nearly any major economic metric – unemployment,
growth, consumer confidence – comes down to the fact that the vast majority of Americans are struggling
in some way. You don't have to begrudge the rich their fortunes or ask for redistribution. It's
just hard to justify ignoring the financial problems of 47 million people who don't have enough
to eat. Until they have enough money to fill their pantries, we won't have a widespread economic
recovery. You can't have a recovery if one-sixth of the world's economically leading country is
eating on $1.50 a day.
It's only surprising that it took so long for anyone – in this case, Pope Francis – to become
the first globally prominent figure to figure this out and bring attention to income inequality.
Income inequality is the issue that will govern whether we ever emerge from the struggling economy
recovery and it determine elections in 2014. The support for Elizabeth Warren to rise above her
seat in the US Senate, for instance, largely centers on
her crusade against inequality. The White House's chirpy protestations that the economy is improving
are not fooling anyone.
Into this morass of economic confusion steps Francis with clarifying force:
Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged
by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness
in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and
naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings
of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.
It's a historic and bold statement, mainly because it's rarely heard from clergy. Money has always
been at odds with religion, going back to the times when God had a fighting chance against Mammon.
Moses grew enraged by the golden calf, Jesus by moneychangers in the temple, Muhammad by lending
money at interest, or usury. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for
a rich man to go to heaven, the Bible tells us.
There have been criticisms from prominent men of religion before, but they didn't stick. in 2008,
the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed Marx against the forces of "unbridled
capitalism", and the Archbishop of York disdained traders as "bank robbers and asset strippers",
but those cries went unheeded in the subsequent flood of corporate profits.
At the time, those criticisms seemed extreme, throwing pitchforks into frozen ground. Francis
is speaking at a when the ground has been thawed. Outrage against the financial sector is lurking
so close to the surface that the US government can extract a
$13bn fine from the nation's largest bank, throwing it into its first financial loss in nine
years, and find significant approval.
Still, popes have been largely content to leave these particular issues of economic inequality
behind in favor of focusing on social issues. There was, after all, a problem of throwing stones.
The church's rich trappings and vast wealth, as well as its scandal-plagued Vatican bank, made an
ill fit to preach too loudly about austerity.
Pope Francis, in his
simple black shoes and unassuming car and house, is the first pontiff in a long time to reject
flashy shows of power and live by the principle of simplicity. That makes him uniquely qualified
to make the Vatican an outpost of Occupy Wall Street. His message about spiritual salvation applies
mainly to Catholics but it would be sensible for economists and lawmakers to recognize his core
message about the importance of income inequality applies to those even those who have no belief
in religion.
Capitalism has always seen itself as an amoral pursuit, where the guiding stars were not "good"
or "bad", but only "profit" and "loss". It's going to be harder to sustain that belief over the
next few years.
succulentpork
Capitalism has always seen itself as an amoral pursuit, where the guiding stars were not
"good" or "bad", but only "profit" and "loss".
This is simply not true. The advocates of capitalism have frequently in the past made the
case that it is a morally good system, or at least the best one that can be achieved. The argument
is that where it is applied to free markets capitalists can only make profit by giving to consumers
those things which they value most highly, and achieving this through cooperation under a system
of division of labour. The morality of this is that it does not use coercion to give people
benefits, it requires this cooperative process from people free to pursue their own interests.
Clearly the Pope never read Adam Smith who explained all this long ago. Many would see this
approach to individualism as deeply moral, especially compared to the alternative of religious
collectivism.
Andrew Fitzgerald -> succulentpork
Coercion was a major focus of Friedman's in Capitalism and Freedom, which I agree was a work
of moral philosophy (that I happen to disagree with).
As for the Pope, I don't think his disagreement with capitalist theorists is clear evidence
that he didn't read them.
Frehley Ernekid
I have warmed to him, but we must remember the vast wealth the Catholic Church is sitting
on. However, it is also exactly what the 'Vicar of Christ' should be saying, especially to the
wealthy. Pope Francis should be bellowing Leviticus 25:35, as the poor have extended a helping
hand to the financial sector, the wealthy should now be doing the same for the poor.
frontalcortexes -> Ernekid
I like this Pope, he's starting the baby steps of reform the Catholic Church desperately
needs, I know any change will be tiny and marginal but its in the right direction
Look the Catholic Church won't make any significant impression on the world's economic and monetary
problems because it won't get down to determining exactly what mechanisms and balances are needed.
Instead it repeatedly turns to the Bible which not only was written a very long time ago and
therefore not dealing with our modern world but can basically be construed in large part as
simply cheer leading for human cooperation. Well and good but it's the detail (including the
logic) of how we can persuaded, nudged and even coerced to cooperate that human societies desperately
need.
AnActuary
Wow - a global figure makes a comment on global inequality and then this:
" Economist Emmanuel Saez found that the incomes of the top 1% grew by 31.4% in the three years
after the financial crisis, while the majority of people struggled with a disappointing economy.
The other 99% of the population grew their incomes 0.4% during the same period. "
Why did the journalist have to boil it down to inequality within the top few percent of the
worlds population (i.e. just by being a citizen of a major developed economy like the US or
the UK puts you in this top percentage).
I somehow think the Pope was focusing on inequality at a gloabal level (although here in the
UK most seem more concerend about inequality within the top 1% and not about the rest of the
world).
Sometimes i wish people would accept how lucky we have it compared to 98-99% of the planet
GreatGrandDad -> SheepEuro
Write article on lessons learned by x to help those of us who would otherwise not been
informed.
It is what newspapers (and their websites) are for.
Perhaps the Pope has read John McMurty's The Cancer Stage of Capitalism and is spreading
the message without mentioning the taboo 'c' word.
Either way-----this article spreads good news.
billforsyth
Because the Catholic church is vehemently anti Communist it is assumed to be pro Capitalist
and many capitalist Catholics believe they have the blessing of the church .The church in fact
believes that materialism and consumerism are as wrong as Communism .The possession of wealth
or power is not of itself evil or wrong as many who do not possess either wish and strive with
a desire to own both and far from rejecting them are envious of those who do own them.
If you believe that man merely has dominion or stewardship of the worlds riches then it follows
that to deny the bounty of the earth to others for whatever reason, political or economical
is not only wrong but sinful.
panpipes billforsyth
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Pope Francis' namesake and his teachings on wealth.
St. Francis (who is known as the most Christ-like of all the Saints) not only renounced his
wealth but taught that money was evil. The Legend of St Francis includes the story of a member
of his order who accepted a donation in order to buy food for the poor. Francis, seeing that
the Brother had broken his rule on not touching money, ordered the monk to throw the coins into
a pile of dog manure and then pick it up with his tongue in order to fully teach him the vile
nature of money.
Or...you could just go to the New Testament and the words attributed to Jesus:
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Frehley -> StevHep
I think this message should resonate with all, regardless of confession. The outcome of religious
conservationism resulted in people of 'faith' not seeing any problem with mass pecuniary inequality.
It reminds me of Glenda Jackson's speech claiming Margaret Thatchers was the fount of 'greed,
selfishness, sharp elbows, sharp knees' and that London had now become a city William Hogarth
would easily recognise. Francis and Welby should be decrying such wanton cruelty shown by 'the
powers that be' upon the poor and infirm. The conservative reaction to this recession has been
nothing but wicked and cruel.
EllisWyatt
Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged
by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness
in the world
Which only someone with a fundamental misunderstanding of trickle down would assert. No economist
defends trickle down benefits on the basis of greater equality or, less tangibly, greater justice.
Its about delivering better overall standards of living for everyone at the risk of greater
inequality between the top and bottom.
By its very definition trickle down won't close the gap between rich and poor, what it permits
is the liberalisation of markets, which means that some agents will get very rich indeed but
the overall pie has got larger, enabling even those at the bottom to do materially better than
they would had we tightly controlled and allocated growth on the basis of fairness.
Now I think there is some truth in that proposition, but its far from conclusive. However the
Pope has effectively created a strawman and predictably the Guardian has leapt all over him
as the latest "saviour speaking out against capitalism" following on the illustrious heels of
Occupy, UK Uncut and Russell Brand…
Phil429 EllisWyatt
No economist defends trickle down benefits on the basis of greater equality or, less tangibly,
greater justice. Its about delivering better overall standards of living for everyone
...except that it's a total failure by that standard as well.
richardwelbirg -> EllisWyatt
I think you give your opponents some ammunition here Ellis. "Trickle-down" economics
was a narrow political theory dreamt up to justify US Republicans giving significant tax breaks
to the rich. It was nonsense.
What you're describing is actually just the increasing liberalisation of markets and, contrary
to what Phil suggested above, it has been a success in delivering improved living standards
in most of the world.
guest88888 -> richardwelbirg
What you're describing is actually just the increasing liberalisation of markets and,
contrary to what Phil suggested above, it has been a success in delivering improved living standards
in most of the world.
You care to back that statement up with facts? Consider the fact that we're in Great Depression
Round 2 right now in most of the world, directly caused by "liberalization."
Greg451
An interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson about Americans who:
"having nothing in them of the feelings or principles of '76, now look to a single and splendid
government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and monied incorporations under
the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding
and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry."
I fail to understand how anyone can argue how unregulated capitalism isn't the source of economic
inequality.
LordJimbo
It didn't take so long, Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict expressed their thoughts on capitalism/neoliberalism
and poverty in the world and they weren't the first to do so.
Pope Benedict covered the thoughts of some of his predecessors on this subject in Caritas in
Veritate (Charity in Truth), published on June 29, 2009 where he stated the most important capital
is and always will be human beings.
Point 40 of that document states:
"John Paul II taught that investment always has moral, as well as economic significance[96].
All this - it should be stressed - is still valid today, despite the fact that the capital
market has been significantly liberalized, and modern technological thinking can suggest
that investment is merely a technical act, not a human and ethical one. There is no reason
to deny that a certain amount of capital can do good, if invested abroad rather than at
home. Yet the requirements of justice must be safeguarded, with due consideration for the
way in which the capital was generated and the harm to individuals that will result if it
is not used where it was produced[97]. What should be avoided is a speculative use of financial
resources that yields to the temptation of seeking only short-term profit, without regard
for the long-term sustainability of the enterprise, its benefit to the real economy and
attention to the advancement, in suitable and appropriate ways, of further economic initiatives
in countries in need of development. It is true that the export of investments and skills
can benefit the populations of the receiving country. Labour and technical knowledge are
a universal good. Yet it is not right to export these things merely for the sake of obtaining
advantageous conditions, or worse, for purposes of exploitation, without making a real contribution
to local society by helping to bring about a robust productive and social system, an essential
factor for stable development."
ErnestHemingway
This column is dead on. If we take out the retired and minors, the average income in the
U.S. should be about 70,000.00 dollars per year. The problem is not lack of funds but distribution
of funds. The idea that some earn immense incomes which they are not worth and have not earned
is the root of the problem. This will resolve itself during the next 2-3 decades... the easy
way or the hard way.
From a global perspective, the problem is much more difficult. The issue is that some societies
are simply more competent than others. I think intra national income redistribution is possible.
International is going to be much more difficult.
We get it: Pope Francis cares about the little guy. He speaks passionately about the rights
of the dispossessed, and more than that, shows solidarity with them through his own humble lifestyle
and rather unpapal rejection of pomp.
The pope has gone a bit overboard, however, in his recent attack on free-market capitalism. In
a lengthy "apostolic
exhortation," Pope Francis rails against "an economy of exclusion" and a " financial system
which rules rather than serves." The pope points out that, in a time of miraculous technological
progress, alarming numbers of people still live in misery and desperation.
"The culture of prosperity deadens us," the pope writes. "We are thrilled if the market offers
us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity
seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us."
The pope clearly follows the news, because income inequality and the growing wealth gap, which
he refers to several times, are hot topics nearly everywhere. But the pope has failed to notice
a few other important trends. First, he's hardly the only one who's concerned about the plight of
the have-nots. Income inequality has become a powerful political force in the United States and
many other countries, for the very reasons the pope cites. As those economic trends worsen, pressure
from below may very well cause political upheaval that at least somewhat reverses the rise of the
rich.
Generous fat cats
The pope's generalizations bring to mind the cartoonish image of a fat cat in a pin-striped suit
smoking a cigar as he steps over a beggar in a gutter. But a lot of fat cats are quite sympathetic
toward the disenfranchised, and some are putting their money where their hearts are. Bill Gates
and Warren Buffett are the most obvious examples, with well over 100 barons of capitalism publicly
committed to their "giving
pledge," agreeing to donate the majority of their considerable wealth to charitable causes.
Charity only goes so far, of course. But there are also many efforts to rework the rules of capitalism
in the United States and other wealthy countries so the middle and lower classes have better economic
opportunities and a fighting chance to improve their living standards. This is very hard to do,
for a number of reasons. For one thing, it's not easy to pinpoint the causes of growing income inequality,
which means fixing the problem is almost never as simple as just taking one person's money and giving
it to something else. It's also important to safeguard what's good about capitalism - such as the
rewards for innovating and the ability to create wealth rather than just moving it around - while
fixing what doesn't work. And of course those benefiting most from the current system have a vested
interest in keeping it that way - along with high-priced lobbyists on the payroll who are skilled
at doing so.
Still, machinery is grinding forward in an effort to roll back the latest incarnation of capitalism's
excesses. In the United States, the 2009 Dodd-Frank reforms were an effort to rein in the financial
sector, much as the pope advocates. Progress is slow and some problems, such as powerful banks deemed
"too big to fail," may escape solutions. But if you ask Wall Streeters, they feel as if they're
under siege, even if their paychecks remain inflated. It's a start, and it seems likely the U.S.
financial sector is going to face tougher scrutiny and tighter limits on greed for the foreseeable
future.
Switzerland, meanwhile, recently voted on a referendum that would have severely limited CEO pay
and linked it to the wage levels of others in the same company. The measure failed at the ballot
box, but the mere fact that Switzerland -- a bankers' haven -- would even consider such a scheme
shows that the least among us are gaining at least a little bit of leverage.
Marxism is over
Finally, for all of capitalism's flaws, there's basically no other system that offers the world's
poor a better shot. The argument in favor of Marxist economies is basically over (despite the hysterical
cries of "socialism!" by some frightened American conservatives regarding the Obama administration).
A global century-long experiment with Marxism that ended around 1989 proved that it generates stagnation
and corruption and oppresses the human spirit in the bargain. Even China, which has a communist
government in both name and practice, has embraced capitalism as the economic system by which it
hopes to become a dominant world power.
The pope doesn't have much to say about what would be better than capitalism. He decries the
"new idolatry of money" (new? really?) while encouraging those with wealth and power to share both
with those who have less. Liberal idealists have been calling for that for centuries.
What has been a lot more effective at raising the living standards of billions, however, is cold,
hard-edged capitalism and the riches dangled before those able to exploit it. Even now, in the raw
aftermath of a global financial crisis, capitalism is improving lives throughout China, India, Brazil,
many African nations and other long-suffering corners of the globe.
Capitalism need not be unregulated, and in fact it rarely ever is. A true free-market is freer,
and crueler, than anybody really needs. With the right guidelines, capitalism is the best system
ever devised for improving lives and speeding human progress. It's the guidelines we need to reevaluate,
not the free market itself.
Pope Francis called for renewal of the Roman Catholic Church and attacked unfettered capitalism
as "a new tyranny", urging global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality in the first major
work he has authored alone as pontiff.
The 84-page document, known as an apostolic exhortation, amounted to an official platform for
his papacy, building on views he has aired in sermons and remarks since he became the first non-European
pontiff in 1,300 years in March.
In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking
the "idolatry of money" and beseeching politicians to guarantee all citizens "dignified work, education
and healthcare".
He also called on rich people to share their wealth. "Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not
kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to
say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills," Francis
wrote in the document issued on Tuesday.
"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but
it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?"
The pope said renewal of the Church could not be put off and said the Vatican and its entrenched
hierarchy "also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion".
"I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets,
rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security,"
he wrote.
In July, Francis finished an encyclical begun by Pope Benedict but he made clear that it was
largely the work of his predecessor, who resigned in February.
Called "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel), the exhortation is presented in Francis'
simple and warm preaching style, distinct from the more academic writings of former popes, and stresses
the Church's central mission of preaching "the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in
Jesus Christ".
In it, he reiterated earlier statements that the Church cannot ordain women or accept abortion.
The male-only priesthood, he said, "is not a question open to discussion" but women must have more
influence in Church leadership.
POVERTY
A meditation on how to revitalize a Church suffering from encroaching secularization in Western
countries, the exhortation echoed the missionary zeal more often heard from the evangelical Protestants
who have won over many disaffected Catholics in the pope's native Latin America.
In it, economic inequality features as one of the issues Francis is most concerned about, and
the 76-year-old pontiff calls for an overhaul of the financial system and warns that unequal distribution
of wealth inevitably leads to violence.
"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy
of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution
will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems," he wrote.
Denying this was simple populism, he called for action "beyond a simple welfare mentality" and
added: "I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of
society, the people, the lives of the poor."
Since his election, Francis has set an example for austerity in the Church, living in a Vatican
guest house rather than the ornate Apostolic Palace, travelling in a Ford Focus, and last month
suspending a bishop who spent millions of euros on his luxurious residence.
He chose to be called "Francis" after the medieval Italian saint of the same name famed for choosing
a life of poverty.
Stressing cooperation among religions, Francis quoted the late Pope John Paul II's idea that
the papacy might be reshaped to promote closer ties with other Christian churches and noted lessons
Rome could learn from the Orthodox such as "synodality" or decentralized leadership.
He praised cooperation with Jews and Muslims and urged Islamic countries to guarantee their Christian
minorities the same religious freedom as Muslims enjoy in the West.
