Responding to Some Thoughts on Capitalism
Rudy linked to an opinion by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online, “The Spoiled Children of Capitalism.” “Leaving religion out of it, no idea has given more to humanity,” than capitalism, argues Goldberg. It has generated more wealth for more people than any economic system prior to it or since its inception and has given rise to innovations in health and sanitation that benefit all of humanity. Capitalism does produce goods and material wealth, but these are fringe benefits, Goldberg says. The real wealth that nations hold is more intangible, “the stuff in our heads, our hearts, and our books,” which “accounts for 82 percent of [the U. S.’] wealth.” Goldberg thus takes issue with the critics within capitalism that arise whenever markets take a downturn. He calls them the spoiled children of capitalism. These voices levy complaints that capitalism focuses too much on the individual and not on the group. Goldberg counters by naming some of the failures of socialism—inefficiency and infighting—and saying overall, capitalism has done more for humanity than the economic systems that state their primary goal is for developing community.
I think the opinion offers a helpful defense of capitalism. I appreciate his argument that a nation’s wealth is not only in terms of material goods. If the focus is merely on building more factories that produce products we want to consume, well then we don’t necessarily need a market economy to bring that about. I wish, however, Goldberg would give more attention to critics of capitalism that claim it has an atomizing effect on societies. Many of these concerns do not come from spoiled brats, but from considerate minds who have real questions about how capitalism shapes “the stuff in our heads, our hearts, and our books.” There is a feedback loop between our character and the systems we create. Yes, our values shape the market; we would do well to remember that the market returns the favor.
In a recent interview on the radio show, Speaking of Faith: The Business of Doing Good, Jonathan Greenblatt, co-founder of Ethos Water, discusses shifting capitalism away from the theories of economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, which have dominated capitalistic thought for the past fifty years. According to the program, Friedman was a strong proponent of the idea that the private sector can do a much better job than government at solving problems. (We certainly have seen great innovations come from the private sector to alleviate numerous problems around the world. Greenblatt agrees that governmental aid cannot be the only model for addressing global poverty. He sees much room and hope for an amalgamation of philanthropy, business innovation, and aid.) Greenblatt goes on to say, however, that Friedman saw, “that the purpose of a corporation is to generate profit for its shareholders.” Friedman argued, “the world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.” If that is not the definition of atomization, I don’t know what is, and I’m concerned that Friedman’s theories have dominated capitalistic thinking for so long.
How is the Christian to look at the data before us? In Philippians 2.4, Paul writes, “Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.” Friedman likely describes our natural instinct, that is, it does not take training to be selfish. Paul, on the other hand, gives us a vision of the world how God wants it and that vision demands character formation. Are Christianity and capitalism diametrically opposed to each other? I do not think so, but I may not say the same of Christianity and Friedmanism. Capitalism, if rightly focused on God and God’s purposes, can likely be a force of community, or social capital. While Greenblatt does not discuss any sort of a Christian basis for his understanding of economics, he does argue that our values should shape how markets and business operate. His vision is based in what he calls “pragmatic idealism.” With regard to Friedman’s understanding of shareholders and their inherent selfishness, Greenblatt says:
The challenge or the opportunity of today is that shareholders’ interests have changed, and they no longer think only about the bottom line. They realize that the bottom line needs to be considered on a more contextual basis. And so businesses that win in the marketplace will be those that deliver great products and services, make no mistake. They have to achieve profits and succeed in their categories, but at the same time you can drive social good in a way that creates a tighter, richer, and more enduring value proposition for everyone.
Goldberg is right to defend capitalism against those who see it as a failed system—I would not want to give up many of the innovations that have arisen because of it. Those that thoughtfully criticize capitalism for exploiting our selfish nature also have a legitimate argument. The criticisms of capitalism as it is now may be a matter of degree rather than kind. I would be curious to hear both Goldberg and capitalism’s critics respond to Greenblatt’s socially responsible business models and theories.


Really an excellent post about a topic that requires far more discussion and debate in the Christian community than it typically gets. I appreciate you taking it on.
I agree—generally—with Goldberg’s take on the contributions of capitalism. Jeffrey Sachs, the renowned economist, makes a very impressive argument along those lines in his great book, “The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Times.” And even Dinesh D’Souza—who I rarely agree with—makes a convincing argument that when people are lifted out of poverty through economic development they often make certain kinds of moral progress too because they no longer face the temptations that misery and survival mode place of the poorest of the poor. No question about that in my mind and in my experience. Lots to be said for capitalism and the wealth of all kinds it creates. Folks that say they want to help the poor but dismiss market approaches are hard to take seriously.
I think the discussion you’re suggesting is more fruitful than what I consider to be a pretty tired Goldbergian style defense of capitalism—at a time when capitalism is ascendant that approach seems kind of 25 years ago and maybe an example of getting stuck in old timey cultural wars. Seems like intellectual energy is better invested examining how to reform capitalism so it can serve people and societies better than it does presently. The church could and should play a central role in that attempt.
Greenblatt, and social entrepreneurs around the world, are in the thick of re-examining current forms of capitalism and trying to introduce new values into ‘the bottom line.’ I’m in the middle of creating a new organization dedicated to helping social entrepreneurs and social visionaries experiment with new ways to ‘do business’ and I’m very excited because I think that’s one of the cutting edge challenges right now.
I guess a key element in the attempt to reform capitalism is identifying the values and outcomes we’re not comfortable with—or feel are just plain wrong—and identifying other values and outcomes we’d rather see. Maybe excessive ‘atomization’ is a problem, or particularly egregious forms of economic inequality and lack of opportunity, or especially virulent strains of materialism or turning more and more area of life into ‘commodities.’
And of course, part of that process is identifying the ‘trade offs’ we can live with—in the real world no system or approach can deliver everything we might want. Only then are you ready to create practical experiments (pragmatic idealism?) for alternative models of capitalist practice.
For example, some of us think most current examples of “the corporation”—capitalism’s most communal form—isn’t democratic enough (maybe that was one of the real problems with old school socialism too?). How can that be changed? How do you develop management and decision making models that make it more democratic? How do you give shareholders a much greater voice?
To paraphrase a first century guy, ‘Capitalism is made for man and not man for Capitalism.’ It just seems Christians should be in the middle of this critical discussion and effort in a deeper way than we seem to be right now.
Comment by Tom — August 7, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
Nice post. To paraphrase, ‘Capitalism is made for people, not people for capitalism.’
Comment by Tom — August 7, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
Good post, especially in that you managed to formulate something positive and intelligent out of a Jonah Goldberg article.
Comment by Chase — August 12, 2008 @ 6:18 am
Bill Gates has been saying some interesting things along the lines of your post—thought you and all might be interested…http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1828069,00.html
Comment by Tom — August 15, 2008 @ 1:46 pm