Day Five: Pope raps Capitalism, Marxism as 'blind alleys'' in a world without God

Pope Benedict XVI closed his five-day trip to Brazil with a speech that, in some ways, he has been waiting thirty years to give. Its heart was that attempts to solve social and political problems without Christ lead to ruin – and, he said, the 20th century offered spectacular examples in the failures of both Marxism and capitalism.

Preaching Christ, the pope implied, is not a distraction from working for justice – it is working for justice.

In a 6,000 word address to open the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, the pope said that both of the main ideological rivals of the recent past, Marxism and capitalism, failed to deliver on their promises for building a better world, because both have tried to do so without reference to God.

“Both capitalism and Marxism promised to point out the path for the creation of just structures, and they declared that these, once established, would function by themselves; they declared that not only would they have no need of any prior individual morality, but that they would promote a communal morality,” the pope said. “And this ideological promise has been proved false. The facts have clearly demonstrated it.”

The pope’s message in Brazil matured over a long period of theological reflection.

It was almost 30 years ago, in 1968, that the bishops of Latin America famously declared a “preferential option for the poor,” and no nation embraced that credo with greater zest than Brazil. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and now as pope, Joseph Ratzinger has been wrestling with the issues raised by liberation theology, for which Brazil is the primary laboratory, ever since.

Liberation theology pioneered the notion of “structural sin,” meaning the sinfulness embedded in social, economic and political structures that perpetuate situations of injustice. Benedict agreed with the diagnosis, saying that “just structures are a condition without which a just order in society is not possible.”

In his address to CELAM, Benedict even endorsed the “preferential option for the poor,” saying it is implicit in the “Christological faith in the God who became poor for us.” The key question, Benedict said, is not whether just structures are desirable, but rather where they come from. His answer was that they can only come from the spiritual and moral values provided by religious faith.

Benedict said that the failures of both Marxism and capitalism illustrate his point.

“The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit. And we can also see the same thing happening in the West, where the distance between rich and poor is growing constantly, and giving rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness.”

In that light, Benedict said, the greatest contribution the Catholic church can make is to credibly and passionately proclaim Christ. People who order their lives on Christ, he argued, naturally pursue the values of peace and justice.

“Where God is absent – God with the human face of Jesus Christ – these values fail to show themselves with their full force, and a consensus does not arise concerning them,” the pope said.

Benedict indicated that he didn’t mean to say non-Christians can’t contribute to a just society. Yet, he argued, the tug of egoism, private gain, and indifference to the suffering of others is simply too strong for a society divided about its core principles.

“I do not mean that non-believers cannot live a lofty and exemplary morality,” he said. “I am only saying that a society in which God is absent will not find the necessary consensus on moral values or the strength to live according to the model of these values, even when they are in conflict with private interests.”

Supplying faith and values, not direct political solutions, is therefore the contribution of the church, Benedict said.

“If the church were to start transforming herself into a directly political subject, she would do less, not more, for the poor and for justice,” the pope said, “because she would lose her independence and her moral authority, identifying herself with a single political path and with debatable partisan positions. The church is the advocate of justice and of the poor, precisely because she does not identify with politicians nor with partisan interests. Only by remaining independent can she teach the great criteria and inalienable values, guide consciences and offer a life choice that goes beyond the political sphere.”

Surveying the challenges facing Latin American Catholicism, Benedict acknowledged that both “the harmonious development of society” and “the Catholic identity of these peoples” are in jeopardy. The former was a reference to the on-going problems of poverty and violence in Latin America, while the latter referred to dramatic losses the Catholic church has suffered to both Pentecostal and Evangelical movements, as well as a growing number of people who say they have no religious faith at all.

Benedict began by saying that under the weight of disillusionment with modernity, some Latin Americans long for a return to a pre-Western culture, including pre-Christian religion. But Christianity, the pope argued, was not an “imposition” on indigenous cultures, but rather a way of “purifying” them that maintained the best elements of those cultures – elements which survive, he suggested, in the popular religiosity for which Latin American Catholicism is well-known.

“The utopia of going back to breathe life into the pre-Columbus religions, separating them from Christ and from the universal church, would not be a step forward,” Benedict said. “In reality, it would a retreat towards a stage in history anchored in the past.”

Neither, however, does modern globalization offer a satisfactory response to the needs of society, Benedict said, citing “the risk of vast monopolies and of treating profit as the supreme value.” The pope said that “the liberal economy of some Latin American countries must take account of equity, because of the ever increasing sectors of society that find themselves oppressed by immense poverty or even despoiled of their own natural resources.”

At the same time, he suggested, populist left-wing movements today associated with Latin American nations such as Venezuela and Bolivia are not the answer, referring to “authoritarian forms of government and regimes wedded to certain ideologies that we thought had been superseded.”

The pope catalogued a series of what he sees as other dead-end roads, including “secularism, hedonism, indifferentism, and proselytism by numerous sects, animist religions and new pseudo-religious phenomena.”

Facing the urgent social justice challenges of Latin America, Benedict conceded that accenting Christ, the sacraments, and the spiritual life can seem like putting one’s head in the sand.

“Could this priority not perhaps be a flight towards emotionalism, towards religious individualism, an abandonment of the urgent reality of the great economic, social and political problems of Latin America and the world, and a flight from reality towards a spiritual world?” he asked rhetorically. Precisely those accusations were sometimes made by liberation theologians against traditional forms of Catholic piety.

In fact, Benedict argued, the question presupposes a vision of reality that marginalizes God.

“This was precisely the great error of the dominant tendencies of the last century, a most destructive error, as we can see from the results of both Marxist and capitalist systems,” he said. “They falsify the notion of reality by detaching it from the foundational and decisive reality, which is God.” Doing so, he warned, is a “recipe for destruction.”

“Hence the unique and irreplaceable importance of Christ for us, for humanity,” the pope said. “If we do not know God in and with Christ, all of reality is transformed into an indecipherable enigma.”

To promote the centrality of Christ, Benedict recommended a renewed focus on the Bible, stronger catechesis and faith formation, greater use of the media, a deeper devotion to the Eucharist and commitment to Sunday Mass. He also called on lay Catholics to be active in public life, in the media and in the universities, lamenting what he called a “notable absence” of committed Catholics in those spheres of life.

The pope singled five topics for special mention: the family, priests, men and women religious, the laity, and the young. On the family, the pope warned against “secularism and ethical relativism,” leading to “civil legislation opposed to marriage, which, by supporting contraception and abortion, is threatening the future of peoples.” Benedict called on governments to adopt comprehensive pro-family policies.

The pope told lay men and women that they must consider themselves “jointly responsible,” along with their pastors, for “building society according to the criteria of the gospel.” He advised the young to steer clear of “the facile illusions of instant happiness and the deceptive paradise offered by drugs, pleasure, and alcohol” and to “oppose every form of violence.”

Benedict also criticized currents in Latin American culture which do not recognize "the equal dignity and responsibility of women relative to men."

The Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean is taking place at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Aparecida, the largest Marian shrine in the southern hemisphere. Coincidentally, the opening session also coincided with the 90th anniversary of the Marian apparitions in Fatima, Portugal.

The Church has always affirmed that a person has the right to property. The question for the Catholic Christian is how do we use that property. Capitalism that does not at its core uphold the dignity of persons becomes an unjust system one indifferent to the suffering it causes. We Christians are called to remember that our gifts and talents come from God. We can never be indifferent to the consequences of our actions.

This can be seen in some of the recent news coming out of China. The petfood recalls, The anti-freeze being substituted for glycerine. In Russia it is the rise of the Russian Mob. These are examples of what happens when profits becomes god. This is capitalism unchecked by moral or ethical considerations.

Christianity can thrive in a capitalist society the two are not automatically in opposition to one another. The right use of property and money strengthens a society. The right to property and to our earnings is one of the best defenses against tyranny. A society that is in constant fear of coups, invasions, and war has a very hard time providing the stability that a family needs to thrive. When families break down because of societal stress the society is further weakened. It becomes a vicious cycle. But in a system where a man's property is safe from unlawful seizure, where a man's wage belongs mostly to him and where a man has a voice in the legal and political system, tyrants are given short shift.

Christianity is quite welcome in this type of society. Especially as it reminds us that our first duty shall be to God. You might get away with cheating your customers now, but what about in eternity? Christianity however can never thrive in a Marxist society. Marxism depends on crushing Christianity and on making the State the new god. It thrives where there is chaos, envy, hatreds and injustice. It has no room for Jesus who can move men's hearts to reconcile and to seek peace.

Good observation. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have recognized that a free-market system is much more conducive to authentic human development than a Marxist system. However, any socio-economic system is going to emphasize the human tendency to turn from God in particular ways.

A key difference between socialism and a market system is that the market system allows potential - including moral potential - to flourish for the benefit of others. The structure of socialism defeats even the best intentions; a society of smart, educated, holy people *still* cannot make socialism work.

Socialism does work — provided one makes certain allowances. A command economy works where resistance to command is zero. The military is an example: an army has its own cities (forts), its own schools, its own power, water, and sewerage utilities, its own airline, postal system, telecom networks, religious institutions, and justice system. Everyone in the army works for the same “company”, gets paid on the same day each month, and accepts the work assignments and duties issued them by their superiors. Job placement is accomplished from above, with people being placed into jobs on the basis of aptitude testing and the needs of the army rather than on personal desire. No one is free to quit his/her job at a whim. An army holds absolute control over the lives of its “citizens” (the individual soldiers) and can order any of them to perform dangerous or even potentially fatal tasks with no explanation or possibility of appeal. All work is done for the good of the collective, not the individual. No one is paid extra for longer hours or overtime; work proceeds until completed, however long a given task might take. Clothing is issued by the collective and is uniform, subject to frequnt inspections. Rations are provided by the collective and are plentiful and nutritious, if not always high in variety or flavor. Housing, transportation, and utilities are provided by the collective. Every member of the army works and produces according to his or her ability and receives in return the neccesities of life in accordance with his or her needs. An army (and to an even greater extent, a navy) is an example of socialism that works.

Other examples of succesful socialism exist (medieval monastaries, for example). The thing these institutions have in common is that in each the individual surrenders his own desires and ambitions to the will of the collective. If the individuals making up a given population do not object to living in a society structured like an army (or a monastery), then socialism can work for that society.

However, for those populations with a moral or cultural orientation opposed to collectivism, socialism cannot be made to function. In such a situation, socialism can only be imposed upon the population by force or fraud by a small elite of ideologues with the backing of a substantial portion of the army. This “revolutionary vanguard” then simply liquidates the smallholders, religious institutions, and hereditary landowners who possess capital (i.e. the means of production and other physical plant) and expropriates their holdings “on behalf of the proletariat”. Systems of administration form as the revolutionaries become the established authorities; tructures of control form as those with more charisma and/or ruthlessness “game” the system to accumulate power for themselves. Once one or more of these power players achieve the ability to liquidate their rivals, they overthrow the other members of the revolutionary vanguard and consolidate power in their own hands.

Capitalism has a similar pattern of progression, but that is beside the point. The point is that a command economy can be made to work so long as the people comprising a given population do not object to being under command.

Interesting points, but the examples you give of “command economies” in fact (when successful) function within a larger context of economic freedom. I agree that the “command concept,” shall we say, has its successes, but those successes are limited by the information limits of the structure, as well as by the human limitations of the participants.

For example, the myriad errors and inefficiencies of the military (ours and others, now and historically) demonstrate the weakness of a system that relies on the information-processing and decision-making of a few, rather than on the widest possible distribution of both functions.

Thanks for your well-thought-out response.

You are correct in yoru assessment of the socialism of the military: it does function within a larger context of economic freedom. However, so do all other systems. The capitalist system we employ itself developed in the context of economic freedom — the distributist model that preceded it. When the property of crofter, church, and aristocrat was expropriated by the early capitalists, the organic structure and distributed capital of the medieval economy was replaced by the imposed structures and concentrated capital of the mercantilists. The invisible Hand of God was slapped aside, to be replaced by the invisible hand of capitalist rational self-interest (and, later, the iron hand of the socialist State).

And of course it is important to note that other militaries than our own can and do function outside the context of economic freedom. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army owns its own farms, flocks, factories, and foundries, yet exists within the context of China’s state-directed capitalist economy.

You are also correct about the inefficiencies of the military economy. However, it must be noted that “military socialism” (for lack of a better term) is literally designed to survive under combat conditions; though the military’s command economy may be sluggish, it is extremely robust. Our capitalist system is flexible but fragile, and could be shattered like an egg by one well-placed, well-timed act of terrorism; on the other hand, the U.S Army could concievably survive the destruction of the United States itself.

I’m not arguing in favor of command economies here; I myself am an advocate of medieval distributist economics. I’m merely pointing out that command economies can be viable given certain initial conditions.

And thank you for bringing up more food for thought! (If I could live on thought, I'd never need to go to Weight Watchers again ... :-).

Our capitalist system is flexible but fragile, and could be shattered like an egg by one well-placed, well-timed act of terrorism; on the other hand, the U.S Army could conceivably survive the destruction of the United States itself.

Excellent point.

I'm not making claims of overwhelming excellence for "capitalism," either. A free-market system does, however, have intrinsically a much greater economic potential, productive of generally greater prosperity, than a command system. Obviously, as the Popes mention, material prosperity is not the end of our existence, and to imagine that it is causes us great harm.

You are correct. Please note, I’m not advocating “military socialism”, either — as a U.S. Navy veteran, I’ve eaten one too many bland mess-deck meals to be in favor of that sort of thing! I believe in small, private enterprise; in fact, back on the ship of that name I often used to wonder what would happen if the crew had permission to operate private business aboard ship, or if the ship were owned by shareholding sailor-owners, and permitted to hire itself out to the highest-bidding nation.

I think we’re more or less on the same page here, and I appreciate your thoughtful commentary.

“Military private enterprise” has been tried, of course ... privateering, and the condottieri in the Italian city-state period. I think it has efficiency advantages, but of course governments don’t really like it!”

In a way, the military has been doing precisely this in Iraq, by contracting out many services and particular jobs to private companies. Kind of an interesting concept, a basically socialist enterprise (the army) contracting out to capitalist businesses in order to achieve cost and service efficiencies. Just as an aside, I have thoroughly enjoyed the interchange between you and B-Chan. It is such a treat to read such thoughtful commentary, so intelligently put, and so politely stated. Kudus to both of you.

Hearty handshake all around! Excellent point, flaglady, about the military's use of private contractors. I'm a big supporter of this. So many functions are performed by military people or civil servants that could be done by private companies, this introducing a profit motive!

What I've noticed missing from the equation, however, and from private contracting at my husband's current Place of Employment, is contract enforcement. If the contractor blows the job, but still gets paid, what's his motivation to do better the next time?

Thomas Sowell's column this morning brings up some of the basic points we've been discussing:

If you start from a belief that the most knowledgeable person on earth does not have even one percent of the total knowledge on earth, that shoots down social engineering, economic central planning, judicial activism and innumerable other ambitious notions ...

If no one has even one percent of all the knowledge in a society, then it is crucial that the other 99 percent of knowledge -- scattered in tiny and individually unimpressive amounts among the population at large -- be allowed the freedom to be used in working out mutual accommodations among the people themselves.

This is the key element in Dr. Sowell's contention, strongly supported by the evidence, that command systems can't work as well as free systems, no matter how knowledgeable and virtuous the participants are.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.