Agreed. The big three modern ideologies of Liberalism/Capitalism, Socialism/Communism, and Fascism are all, taken whole, incompatible with historic Christian teaching.
This actually led to a discussion in my writer's group. Part of the negative perception of Capitalism is that the people who promoted the Free Market did, in fact, lean in to the "greed" and "enlightened self interest" stuff, because the Free Market does tend to be self correcting (not perfectly, and yes, it does matter what your goals are: I'm not a libertarian anymore). Socialism "sounds" a lot nicer. Who wants to be anti-social? (Yes, I know. Some people do. Roll with it.) And it sounds like charity and sharing. But when forced, I think it tends to lead to envy and in the worst case, what we see in communist nations.
But the Free Market, as a system, is in fact a form of subsidiarity: it devolves decision making on the use of resources to the people closest to the making or using of the resources. This also is, I believe, the best solution to the information problem, which is that no government, of any type, no matter how saintly the people or high the tech, has enough information to know the best use of all resources for all people at all times. This means that people are better able to support their families and help their communities.
It also means, due to our sinful nature, that we can squander our resources and hurt other people. There's no perfect solution this side of heaven.
I think there is a distinction to be made. Individualism is wrong. Collectivism is also wrong. There is a path, the path of Christianity, that denies both ideologies, but because we are so wrapped up in the heresies on either side, we can’t see the orthodoxy very well. Its something like subsidiarity with the atomic building block of society being the family, and the greatest being the servants of the least.
Yes... even in writing this I can feel there is a haze about what comes next, as if the Capitalism "in me" blurs my ability to see alternatives. Agree.
A bit ‘over the top’ perhaps because the emotiveness of your essay is rather strong. Nevertheless - any ‘ism’ other than ‘Christ-ism’, a devotion to the Messiah, is bound to mislead and fail. But for pious and orthodox Christians, capitalism restrained by God’s Love is quite worthy of use. And for those not restrained by God’s Love, capitalism is less bad than the alternatives...
Capitalism restrained... I like that. So, Capitalism restrained by God's love makes capitalism something like tolerable. I'm not convinced about "better" than the alternatives however. A country full of good, ascetic minded Christians practicing something like socialism seems possible to me. In fact, if people living in any society are restrained by God's love, it feels like any society at that point is tolerable. My question is not clear yet in my own soul. but I think a good question is which system does the most to restrain, or dilute or destroy the soul. Which system assaults the soul of a "good" Christian trying to live restrained by Christ? Individualism as a system, an ideology or a religion, well, that "ism" is good at destroying things its seems. That "ism" is good at creating narcissists for sure. Hmmm...
Thanks for your thoughtfulness in responding to my comments - very abbreviated as they were. Here are some more ‘hasty’ comments.
Individualism - like other ‘isms’ not restrained by God’s discipline will end badly. Along these lines, Christian individuals have an individual-personal relationship with God through faith in Jesus. But this relationship is to be operative within the Church which is a community that nurtures and restrains the individual. Similarly, capitalism restrained by God’s love nevertheless needs be operative within a form of government that can support these restraints - best this should be democracy restrained by federalism and a constitutional protection of minorities. Finally, the discussion seems to be oriented around ‘pure’ economic structure. But there are very few (perhaps none?) pure capitalist or socialist economic systems. In this respect then it is balanced economic structure - capitalist/socialist - that is likely to work best. These ideas pertain to secular society as well, though ‘secular’ is a difficult term as it often is understood to mean ‘areligious’ leaving the morality needed for restraints difficult to obtain.
I love you brother but this seems a bit too broad... without respect for the individual there can be no individual freedoms and the constitutions First Freedom is that of religious conscience.... without respect for the individual we all get to either sacrifice to ba'al and partake of orgies with our unattractive Neighbors or die a martyr. Given those two choices I'm okay with a little individualism in my Society:-)
Me too Frank. The problem is a little individualism isn't a thing. Christianity doesn't allow for "a little individualism". You are not your own. No God, no you. No father, no you. No mother, no you. We aren't able to be such a thing as "individual". We can, but that's known as death. Nihil. Maybe you mean, a little freedom to choose is a good thing. Which I think is a good thing. But the choice is never mine alone. I think.
Right on brother! In that case if you're going to use individualism in this scientific materialistic atoministic way then you should start your essay by defining it. For the rest of us commoners individualism it's just the idea that we can all make our own choices in life so some can become pastors and some can become profits and some can become janitors. But I get what you're saying and I don't disagree that we cannot operate in a vacuum and do not come from nothing. I just don't think that's how people talk. :-)
Is the free market just the idea that theft is wrong? Here's St John Chrysostom on what theft is: "Not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth, but theirs"
And
"If you have two pairs of shoes, one belongs to the poor."
Zac you are after my own heart here. Free market demands a notion of the individual as unto himself. I just don't think that's a category. Like... it is a lie. But the "free market" ideology NEEDS this lie to be true in order to build out the system. It needs this "given" as in Geometry. I just think it is a bad given. As in... not a thing. We are not our own. We owe others everything because we are nothing without the other. We are not owners. We are stewards, holding something for The Other.
When the light people’s dialectic obsessed computer brains take over we all loose. What 20th century political ideology is the lightest? Hmmm….
Communism- destroy tradition and use science to bring about the new man and the perfect peaceful society.
Capitalism- give people freedom and they will make the utopia on their own.
Fascism- do what it takes to defend blood and soil.
This is what happens when you reject the mystery and demand clarity. This is the opposite of the royal path. They are all right and all wrong at the same time.
3 questions jump out at me.
1. Which political regime was best for Christian’s?
2. What does proper Christian governance look like? Feudalism? Monarchy? 4th political theory ;) ? Anarchy? The rule of Saint Benedict?
3. What is the best example of Christian governance from the past? From the Bible?
4. It seems like the hearts of the citizens are a bigger problem than the structure of their governance?
Brian Bob... this quote of yours answers all the other questions somehow for me: “It seems like the hearts of the citizens are a bigger problem than the structure of their governance...”
Intriguing, brother -- a very heavy thing done as if we were talking about autumn leaves falling in the breeze, which is in fact what I'm seeing outside the window right now. One follow-up question. You said: "Orthodox Greek people, very aware of their democratic heritage under Athens, those Christians, led by Constantine the Great, rejected democracy and instead chose a socialized monarchy." You kind of make it sound like it was a choice, but was it? (That's an actual question; I don't know history). By the time of Constantine the Great (Great in the same sense as Alexander the Great), Athens' extremely brief and failed experiment in democracy had imploded a good, what, 700 years before that? And the Greek-speaking, proto-Orthodox people of Constantine's time had long since come to identify themselves as Romans, to believe in the Roman imperial order. Was there, actually, a democracy for them to "reject"? And could they indeed have "chosen" a socialized monarchy? Or was that monarchy taken as a given, any alternative having become long since unimaginable, including the alternative of Yeshua's kingdom of God, whose economic philosophy seemed to amount to basically: If you have Caesar's money, give that back to Caesar--and yourselves back to God. (Of course, that was totally unrealistic, as was everything else he said to do, which is why there have to be reasonable accommodations and compromises to keep the world system functioning, rather than disrupt it...and that eventually leads to capitalism, etc) Just thinking out loud here, with the autumn leaves.
Love this good Graham! But alas, I'd say this: Americans named founding fathers literally harkened back to the Greeks. By name. As if known to them, they built a system called "democracy" in the image of a people long dead to them. Like really, really dead to them. Something tells me the Greeks could have done the same. But I take your point well: Could have if they had the vision to. And that vision was in many ways dead to them because they were becoming Christians. Their Christianity (roman and greek as it was) wouldn't allow them to see their own past as possible. But it was possible. British people made it happen many many years later. It was more likely in 1776 because the spirit of those people we call Americans now, those people were becoming deist believers in the individual. They could see clearly what Constantine and his mother could not. Capitalism is a shiny sexy thing for individualists.
Agreed. The big three modern ideologies of Liberalism/Capitalism, Socialism/Communism, and Fascism are all, taken whole, incompatible with historic Christian teaching.
This actually led to a discussion in my writer's group. Part of the negative perception of Capitalism is that the people who promoted the Free Market did, in fact, lean in to the "greed" and "enlightened self interest" stuff, because the Free Market does tend to be self correcting (not perfectly, and yes, it does matter what your goals are: I'm not a libertarian anymore). Socialism "sounds" a lot nicer. Who wants to be anti-social? (Yes, I know. Some people do. Roll with it.) And it sounds like charity and sharing. But when forced, I think it tends to lead to envy and in the worst case, what we see in communist nations.
But the Free Market, as a system, is in fact a form of subsidiarity: it devolves decision making on the use of resources to the people closest to the making or using of the resources. This also is, I believe, the best solution to the information problem, which is that no government, of any type, no matter how saintly the people or high the tech, has enough information to know the best use of all resources for all people at all times. This means that people are better able to support their families and help their communities.
It also means, due to our sinful nature, that we can squander our resources and hurt other people. There's no perfect solution this side of heaven.
I think there is a distinction to be made. Individualism is wrong. Collectivism is also wrong. There is a path, the path of Christianity, that denies both ideologies, but because we are so wrapped up in the heresies on either side, we can’t see the orthodoxy very well. Its something like subsidiarity with the atomic building block of society being the family, and the greatest being the servants of the least.
Yes... even in writing this I can feel there is a haze about what comes next, as if the Capitalism "in me" blurs my ability to see alternatives. Agree.
hmmm... tell us more. Interesting, but I think it ends back in the same place. With the individual as the highest category of reality. I think.
A bit ‘over the top’ perhaps because the emotiveness of your essay is rather strong. Nevertheless - any ‘ism’ other than ‘Christ-ism’, a devotion to the Messiah, is bound to mislead and fail. But for pious and orthodox Christians, capitalism restrained by God’s Love is quite worthy of use. And for those not restrained by God’s Love, capitalism is less bad than the alternatives...
Capitalism restrained... I like that. So, Capitalism restrained by God's love makes capitalism something like tolerable. I'm not convinced about "better" than the alternatives however. A country full of good, ascetic minded Christians practicing something like socialism seems possible to me. In fact, if people living in any society are restrained by God's love, it feels like any society at that point is tolerable. My question is not clear yet in my own soul. but I think a good question is which system does the most to restrain, or dilute or destroy the soul. Which system assaults the soul of a "good" Christian trying to live restrained by Christ? Individualism as a system, an ideology or a religion, well, that "ism" is good at destroying things its seems. That "ism" is good at creating narcissists for sure. Hmmm...
Thanks for your thoughtfulness in responding to my comments - very abbreviated as they were. Here are some more ‘hasty’ comments.
Individualism - like other ‘isms’ not restrained by God’s discipline will end badly. Along these lines, Christian individuals have an individual-personal relationship with God through faith in Jesus. But this relationship is to be operative within the Church which is a community that nurtures and restrains the individual. Similarly, capitalism restrained by God’s love nevertheless needs be operative within a form of government that can support these restraints - best this should be democracy restrained by federalism and a constitutional protection of minorities. Finally, the discussion seems to be oriented around ‘pure’ economic structure. But there are very few (perhaps none?) pure capitalist or socialist economic systems. In this respect then it is balanced economic structure - capitalist/socialist - that is likely to work best. These ideas pertain to secular society as well, though ‘secular’ is a difficult term as it often is understood to mean ‘areligious’ leaving the morality needed for restraints difficult to obtain.
I hope these ideas seem pertinent and useful.
I love you brother but this seems a bit too broad... without respect for the individual there can be no individual freedoms and the constitutions First Freedom is that of religious conscience.... without respect for the individual we all get to either sacrifice to ba'al and partake of orgies with our unattractive Neighbors or die a martyr. Given those two choices I'm okay with a little individualism in my Society:-)
Me too Frank. The problem is a little individualism isn't a thing. Christianity doesn't allow for "a little individualism". You are not your own. No God, no you. No father, no you. No mother, no you. We aren't able to be such a thing as "individual". We can, but that's known as death. Nihil. Maybe you mean, a little freedom to choose is a good thing. Which I think is a good thing. But the choice is never mine alone. I think.
Right on brother! In that case if you're going to use individualism in this scientific materialistic atoministic way then you should start your essay by defining it. For the rest of us commoners individualism it's just the idea that we can all make our own choices in life so some can become pastors and some can become profits and some can become janitors. But I get what you're saying and I don't disagree that we cannot operate in a vacuum and do not come from nothing. I just don't think that's how people talk. :-)
Capitalism is Karl Marx's word. And it is not the same as the Free Market, which is basically the idea that theft is wrong.
Is the free market just the idea that theft is wrong? Here's St John Chrysostom on what theft is: "Not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth, but theirs"
And
"If you have two pairs of shoes, one belongs to the poor."
Zac you are after my own heart here. Free market demands a notion of the individual as unto himself. I just don't think that's a category. Like... it is a lie. But the "free market" ideology NEEDS this lie to be true in order to build out the system. It needs this "given" as in Geometry. I just think it is a bad given. As in... not a thing. We are not our own. We owe others everything because we are nothing without the other. We are not owners. We are stewards, holding something for The Other.
This doesn't answer your question, but I write fiction here, and I wrote a short story based on Luke 3:7-14, which is where John the Baptist says something similar. https://maryh10000.substack.com/p/john-the-baptists-advice-to-soldiers
I shall endeavour to read it!
When the light people’s dialectic obsessed computer brains take over we all loose. What 20th century political ideology is the lightest? Hmmm….
Communism- destroy tradition and use science to bring about the new man and the perfect peaceful society.
Capitalism- give people freedom and they will make the utopia on their own.
Fascism- do what it takes to defend blood and soil.
This is what happens when you reject the mystery and demand clarity. This is the opposite of the royal path. They are all right and all wrong at the same time.
3 questions jump out at me.
1. Which political regime was best for Christian’s?
2. What does proper Christian governance look like? Feudalism? Monarchy? 4th political theory ;) ? Anarchy? The rule of Saint Benedict?
3. What is the best example of Christian governance from the past? From the Bible?
4. It seems like the hearts of the citizens are a bigger problem than the structure of their governance?
Brian Bob... this quote of yours answers all the other questions somehow for me: “It seems like the hearts of the citizens are a bigger problem than the structure of their governance...”
I have felt that way since I was a teenager. All this debate about what the best way to organize ourselves is a distraction. All man made systems suck
Intriguing, brother -- a very heavy thing done as if we were talking about autumn leaves falling in the breeze, which is in fact what I'm seeing outside the window right now. One follow-up question. You said: "Orthodox Greek people, very aware of their democratic heritage under Athens, those Christians, led by Constantine the Great, rejected democracy and instead chose a socialized monarchy." You kind of make it sound like it was a choice, but was it? (That's an actual question; I don't know history). By the time of Constantine the Great (Great in the same sense as Alexander the Great), Athens' extremely brief and failed experiment in democracy had imploded a good, what, 700 years before that? And the Greek-speaking, proto-Orthodox people of Constantine's time had long since come to identify themselves as Romans, to believe in the Roman imperial order. Was there, actually, a democracy for them to "reject"? And could they indeed have "chosen" a socialized monarchy? Or was that monarchy taken as a given, any alternative having become long since unimaginable, including the alternative of Yeshua's kingdom of God, whose economic philosophy seemed to amount to basically: If you have Caesar's money, give that back to Caesar--and yourselves back to God. (Of course, that was totally unrealistic, as was everything else he said to do, which is why there have to be reasonable accommodations and compromises to keep the world system functioning, rather than disrupt it...and that eventually leads to capitalism, etc) Just thinking out loud here, with the autumn leaves.
Love this good Graham! But alas, I'd say this: Americans named founding fathers literally harkened back to the Greeks. By name. As if known to them, they built a system called "democracy" in the image of a people long dead to them. Like really, really dead to them. Something tells me the Greeks could have done the same. But I take your point well: Could have if they had the vision to. And that vision was in many ways dead to them because they were becoming Christians. Their Christianity (roman and greek as it was) wouldn't allow them to see their own past as possible. But it was possible. British people made it happen many many years later. It was more likely in 1776 because the spirit of those people we call Americans now, those people were becoming deist believers in the individual. They could see clearly what Constantine and his mother could not. Capitalism is a shiny sexy thing for individualists.