Capitalism and Traditional Values

Messages
2,924
Reaction score
13
Points
0
I’ve been hearing a lot of muttering about how America is going down the toilet because of a general erosion of morals and traditional values. The political right has latched onto this sentiment and used it to great effect in the last few election cycles. Some posters here may be convinced that things have become so bad that the end of the world is immanent, and that seems to be a widespread and common conception among many of their fellow believers in this country. I have a different view.

First, I think that these somewhat amorphous “values”, the importance of which was picked up in exit polls and widely reported in the media, are not specifically religious in nature. There is a religious component to be sure, but I think what Americans refer to as “values” is a whole set of what might be called “perceived social norms.” There is a palpable resistance on the part of American society as a whole to change in the way things “always have been, and should always be.” I think this super-set of cultural values is what people often refer to as the “American way.”

Looking at watershed events in, for example, the civil rights movements from women’s suffrage through the present debate over same sex marriage, including the struggle to end racial segregation, radical feminism in the ’60’s, etc., one can see resistance to cultural change consistently coming from conservative Christianity. While the rhetoric of those who oppose change is consciously designed to couch the issue as a fight for traditional religious-moral values, the real underlying issue is a general fear of, and resistance to change itself. In the current debate over same sex marriage, for example, the rhetoric may overtly emphasize “sin” or the “sanctity” of heterosexual marriage, but the real issue is an insidious fear of making that large of a change in the social status quo. Heterosexual marriage is “sanctified” as a social institution largely by virtue of the fact that we’re so used to it being that way.

But even the fear of, and resistance to cultural and social change isn’t the bedrock cause of people’s anxiety over the preservation of traditional values. What makes up our collective sense of morals, ethics, and values, and defines our cultural identity is a super-set of aesthetic, quantitative, and structural expectations ranging from religious and political sensibilities all the way down to what color and shape a stop sign should be. Houses are square or rectangular, goods come packaged in certain standard quantities and sizes of containers, and people assume certain roles and modes of dress. Even ideas and aesthetics like art and architecture are conceptualized in accordance with standard forms.

All of these norms, together with the mutually accepted modes in which we interact with other people within our families, extended families and social circles, and how we collectively form and participate in religious and secular communities make up what we might call a social mythology. When we make reference to the “American way” we are really referring to this mythical structure. What then happens is that these collective practices, modes of action, organization, and discourse begin to appear to be “realized myth.” This is the reason why the anxiety induced by changes in the “way things are and always have been” manifests as a perceived threat to religion and its assumed hegemony over, and guardianship of “morals”.

Change is inevitable, though. The reason change is inevitable is that we live in a capitalist society, and capitalism is dynamic, and therefore inherently unstable. In order for capitalism to continue to work the market must continually expand. More, and more, and more capital must be created forever. People must purchase and consume more, and more, and more goods forever. If the market ever stops growing or becomes saturated with goods the whole house of cards will collapse. There are several ways to keep this constant growth happening.

One way is to get people to continually buy more goods through planned obsolescence. Fashions change, and new clothes, cars and electronics are pushed as the remedy to dreaded un-stylishness. Sex appeal has been created as an artificial commodity to get people to buy everything from toothpaste to beer. And now with erectile disfunction remedies, the marketing industry hopes to extend the “sex sells” approach all the way to the nursing home set. Another approach is to erode the price of labor so that larger profits can be made even if volume remains consistent. The power of labor unions is attacked, people are forced to work longer for less, and there is the constant threat of off shoring.

The point I’m making here is that what is causing Americans to feel an uncomfortable underlying sense of anxiety and jumpiness is the increasing rapidity with which cultural and social changes are occurring to shore up the very viability of our capitalist system. So many little changes happen all the time, but we’ve become accustomed to dismissing them. But the cumulative effect is that we feel insecure without really knowing why until a big overt change like a terrorist attack on home soil and a war comes along. Put a biggy issue like same sex marriage on top of that and it’s more change than we can stand.


Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I’ve been hearing a lot of muttering about how America is going down the toilet because of a general erosion of morals and traditional values. The political right has latched onto this sentiment and used it to great effect in the last few election cycles. Some posters here may be convinced that things have become so bad that the end of the world is immanent, and that seems to be a widespread and common conception among many of their fellow believers in this country. I have a different view.

First, I think that these somewhat amorphous “values”, the importance of which was picked up in exit polls and widely reported in the media, are not specifically religious in nature. There is a religious component to be sure, but I think what Americans refer to as “values” is a whole set of what might be called “perceived social norms.” There is a palpable resistance on the part of American society as a whole to change in the way things “always have been, and should always be.” I think this super-set of cultural values is what people often refer to as the “American way.”

Looking at watershed events in, for example, the civil rights movements from women’s suffrage through the present debate over same sex marriage, including the struggle to end racial segregation, radical feminism in the ’60’s, etc., one can see resistance to cultural change consistently coming from conservative Christianity. While the rhetoric of those who oppose change is consciously designed to couch the issue as a fight for traditional religious-moral values, the real underlying issue is a general fear of, and resistance to change itself. In the current debate over same sex marriage, for example, the rhetoric may overtly emphasize “sin” or the “sanctity” of heterosexual marriage, but the real issue is an insidious fear of making that large of a change in the social status quo. Heterosexual marriage is “sanctified” as a social institution largely by virtue of the fact that we’re so used to it being that way.

But even the fear of, and resistance to cultural and social change isn’t the bedrock cause of people’s anxiety over the preservation of traditional values. What makes up our collective sense of morals, ethics, and values, and defines our cultural identity is a super-set of aesthetic, quantitative, and structural expectations ranging from religious and political sensibilities all the way down to what color and shape a stop sign should be. Houses are square or rectangular, goods come packaged in certain standard quantities and sizes of containers, and people assume certain roles and modes of dress. Even ideas and aesthetics like art and architecture are conceptualized in accordance with standard forms.

All of these norms, together with the mutually accepted modes in which we interact with other people within our families, extended families and social circles, and how we collectively form and participate in religious and secular communities make up what we might call a social mythology. When we make reference to the “American way” we are really referring to this mythical structure. What then happens is that these collective practices, modes of action, organization, and discourse begin to appear to be “realized myth.” This is the reason why the anxiety induced by changes in the “way things are and always have been” manifests as a perceived threat to religion and its assumed hegemony over, and guardianship of “morals”.

Change is inevitable, though. The reason change is inevitable is that we live in a capitalist society, and capitalism is dynamic, and therefore inherently unstable. In order for capitalism to continue to work the market must continually expand. More, and more, and more capital must be created forever. People must purchase and consume more, and more, and more goods forever. If the market ever stops growing or becomes saturated with goods the whole house of cards will collapse. There are several ways to keep this constant growth happening.

One way is to get people to continually buy more goods through planned obsolescence. Fashions change, and new clothes, cars and electronics are pushed as the remedy to dreaded un-stylishness. Sex appeal has been created as an artificial commodity to get people to buy everything from toothpaste to beer. And now with erectile disfunction remedies, the marketing industry hopes to extend the “sex sells” approach all the way to the nursing home set. Another approach is to erode the price of labor so that larger profits can be made even if volume remains consistent. The power of labor unions is attacked, people are forced to work longer for less, and there is the constant threat of off shoring.

The point I’m making here is that what is causing Americans to feel an uncomfortable underlying sense of anxiety and jumpiness is the increasing rapidity with which cultural and social changes are occurring to shore up the very viability of our capitalist system. So many little changes happen all the time, but we’ve become accustomed to dismissing them. But the cumulative effect is that we feel insecure without really knowing why until a big overt change like a terrorist attack on home soil and a war comes along. Put a biggy issue like same sex marriage on top of that and it’s more change than we can stand.


Chris
Chris, I largely agree. What's more, I would like to propose the following thesis: Capitalism, in its essence, is opposed to the values set forth in the Bible.

I propose this as somone who is middle-class and enjoys the benefits of capitalism, the goose that lays the golden eggs. I am not socialist (except when it comes to healthcare), nor any other kind of anti-establishment radical. Yet, when I read the Bible, both OT and NT, I see a consistent ethic that opposes materialism and consumerism. Not only in prophets and evangelists like Isaiah, Amos, and Luke, but even in the Torah--see, eg, Leviticus 25.

Yet a majority of Evangelicals (certainly not all) seem to see no problem, and celebrate the American economic way of life, as well as Biblical values. It makes me wonder sometimes how carefully they read their Bible, or how selectively.

OTOH, there are Evangelicals like Jim Wallis--editor of SOJOURNERS mag, and author of GOD'S POLITICS--who definitely see the problem and who are very articulate about it. And in Catholicism, there is the CATHOLIC WORKER movement.

Anyway, the propostiion is: Capitalism is inherently opposed to the etich preached in both OT and NT.
 
Interesting thoughts Jeannot. I'm not sure that capitalism per se is anti-biblical, but expansionist, predatory capitalism surely doesn't seem to serve the philosophy of Christ or early Judaism. There are a number of stories in the Bible concerned with capital increase. One that comes readily to mind is the parable of the servants who were given varying amounts of gold and expected to make a profit. Of course that's a parable, but there are other stories as well.

I'm of several minds politically when it comes to economic systems. In a purely utopian sense I like what you might call libertarian anarchism. But in practical terms, and as a member of the harried working class who can only dream of rising to the steadily shrinking middle class, I'm willing to embrace a modicum of socialism provided I don't have to share my stuff with anyone I don't choose! Frankly, I've been culturally programmed as an American to fear even the concept of socialism. You know: reds under the bed and all that.

I like what Noam Chomsky says, but I always think "man, how would this stuff ever work in the real world?"

Chris
 
I agree with most of what has been said here.

Joseph Schumpeter was an economist at the University of Chicago about fifty years ago and won a Nobel for his theories regarding capitalism. He defined it as a system of "creative destruction".

As we reflect upon the effects of capitalistic systems in the modern world, there is also no doubt that such economic systems, as they exist in today's world, cause untold and somewhat unanticipated misery for those who participate, mostly unwillingly, in such economic systems. The view that such systems violate sacred teachings is true since a globalization of capitalistic systems automatically imposes their attributes upon all of the world's citizens over time, regardless of personal choice.

Conflict and competition are the rule. Sharing, other than through voluntary contributions, does not occur. This why the biblical admonishments of sharing and the support of widows and orphans are such prominent themes in both testaments.

There are lights in the darkness. As an example the Gates Foundation is doing some remarkable and revolutionary things in the third world today, both in the USA and in foreign lands. Despite what some may think, Hugo Chavez's program to provide affordable fuel from Venezuela's oil bonanza, has brought unforseen help to the poor, even in the United States. There is always hope that sacred love of one another will prevail in time, or at least blunt the more destructive attributes of capitalistic systems.

The only negative thing in all this is that capitalism-based economic activities have evolved such that many people now earn a living based upon the misery and suffering of others. This engenders the tendency of humans to treat other humans as objects. In the long run this may become the ultimately destructive attribute of capitalism.

flow....:confused:
 
flowperson said:
I agree with most of what has been said here.

Joseph Schumpeter was an economist at the University of Chicago about fifty years ago and won a Nobel for his theories regarding capitalism. He defined it as a system of "creative destruction".

As we reflect upon the effects of capitalistic systems in the modern world, there is also no doubt that such economic systems, as they exist in today's world, cause untold and somewhat unanticipated misery for those who participate, mostly unwillingly, in such economic systems. The view that such systems violate sacred teachings is true since a globalization of capitalistic systems automatically imposes their attributes upon all of the world's citizens over time, regardless of personal choice.

Conflict and competition are the rule. Sharing, other than through voluntary contributions, does not occur. This why the biblical admonishments of sharing and the support of widows and orphans are such prominent themes in both testaments.

There are lights in the darkness. As an example the Gates Foundation is doing some remarkable and revolutionary things in the third world today, both in the USA and in foreign lands. Despite what some may think, Hugo Chavez's program to provide affordable fuel from Venezuela's oil bonanza, has brought unforseen help to the poor, even in the United States. There is always hope that sacred love of one another will prevail in time, or at least blunt the more destructive attributes of capitalistic systems.

The only negative thing in all this is that capitalism-based economic activities have evolved such that many people now earn a living based upon the misery and suffering of others. This engenders the tendency of humans to treat other humans as objects. In the long run this may become the ultimately destructive attribute of capitalism.

flow....:confused:

Flow, I agree. Yes, Gates and Chavez (strange bedfellows!) are good examples. BTW, Gates' father campaigned AGAINST tax cuts for the rich.

Capitalism is materialistic in its essence. It views people as consumers. Its mantra is "the bottom line." It's okay if it controlled, but the problem is that its usually the controller, taking over governments, etc.

In the Bible, the taking of interest, the basis of finance capitalism, is forbidden. And yet, much of the Religious Right is in bed with capitalism, trying to serve both God and Mammon.

(He deflates his portable soapbox, and stimbles off the podium)
 
Jeannot said:
In the Bible, the taking of interest, the basis of finance capitalism, is forbidden. And yet, much of the Religious Right is in bed with capitalism, trying to serve both God and Mammon.

I'll preface this by saying I do not understand the finer points of economics (OK, I don't know much about the gross points either) but this is also what strikes me as the problem. Biblical injunctions aside, what strikes me as 'unjust' are the additional layers of feeders who literally captialize on the rest of the system. Stocks are all very well and good, but then there are at least a couple additional layers of 'business' over this that profit from buying and selling, the phenomenon of 'day-trading' being an example that the average joe can get in on. But the biggest fish are riding the tsunami of capitalism without making a single contribution to actual goods and services. After a point it seems a lot more like a pyramid scheme, or gambling, rather than ethical business.

2 c,
lunamoth
 
Jeannot said:
F....In the Bible, the taking of interest, the basis of finance capitalism, is forbidden. And yet, much of the Religious Right is in bed with capitalism, trying to serve both God and Mammon.

(He deflates his portable soapbox, and stimbles off the podium)
This always interested me...the interest thing...talk about stifling an economy...can anyone explain it? I can take my money and invest in my own business or lend money to someone for no return...so confusing.
 
Luna, John, and wil:

Thanks for your comebacks.

Yes Luna, there are reasons why economics is known as the dismal science. One of them is the non-value adding practice of layering over creative enterprise for the fun and profit of those who are otherwise untalented enough to have original ideas themselves. But lest we be too harsh and judgemental of these sorts of individuals, there are needs for ordered and regulated marketplaces so that developed goods and services may reach the public in a reasonably expedited and priced manner. This is what capitalism really does best, and other utopian ideas and systemic experiments such as communal agriculture, central planning, and feudal monarchy have failed miserably in the face of free enterprise throughout history.

It should also probably be noted that the Jews, during their centuries-long European disapora were ghettoized and forced into money lending and trading roles by their gentile brothers and sisters, since Jews were prohibited by the greater community from engaging in the trades or other reputable undertakings.

Clinton's first Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, wrote a seminal paper at Harvard before he assumed his cabinet duties; and, in it he refers to the process you described, Luna, as "paper entrepreneurship". My personal opinion is that this is something that lawyers invented back in the day when they saw that rule of law was going to be the control point for free markets.

It would also be cool if you could access a copy of a film I once saw of David Mamet's play titled, The Water Engine. It is especially cogent in describing this phemenon, and in light of today's energy prices would certainly be topical for you to see.

flow....:cool:
 
Good points made here. Bottom line: It's a dilemma.

Lest it be thought that I'm anti-capitalist, let me say that I live a comfortable middle-class existence, due mainly to capitalism. Capitalsim is the goose that lays the golden eggs. From a worldly perspective, it may be the best economic system there is. Pragmatically, it works pretty well for most people (certainly not for all).

The rub comes when you bring in religious values, specifically the Bible--see especially Isaiah, Amos, and Luke. Then there's also Paul, who said that the love of money is the root of all evil. That's hyperbole, but Paul was still making a point.

Then there's James: "Come now, you who say 'Today or tomorrow we will to to such and such a city and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.' Yet you do not know what life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away.... Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you, etc." (James 4:13-5:1ff)

This is Biblical. And its spirit is antithetical to the spirit of capitalism. My problem is that there seem to be a lot of Christians who see no discrepancy between the two spirits. "You cannot serve both God and Mammon."
 
Back
Top