Money, Greed, and God - Chapter 7
"Doesn't Capitalism Lead to an Ugly Consumerist Culture?"
This is one of the hardest chapters to summarize, as Richards doesn't really attack the question in general terms - rather he just looks at a few specific cases.
Personally, I think this approach is fair. You typically don't hear people asking this as a general question - instead, they have some specific issue in mind.
For example: factory farms. Many (on right and left) consider the rise of the factory farm to be a great capitalist evil. Richards makes two good points on this. First, factory farms are largely the result of government subsidies which favor larger farms. Government subsidies are not a capitalist institution. Second, in as far as factory farms are actually out-competing smaller farms, it's for a simple reason: they can feed more people at a lower cost. Can we seriously say that food should be more expensive and less available? Advocating that is equivalent to advocating starvation for the poorest members of humanity. Not a tenable position.
The reality is that the free market gives people what they want, as long as enough people want it strongly enough. If people want locally grown produce and are willing and able to pay for it, the market provides (thus, we have farmers' markets popping up all over the place). If people want Taco Bell, the market provides.
Does the market produce consumerism? Not really - once we understand consumerism in a Christian context. The fact is that Christianity has nothing to say about "consumerism". The term appears nowhere in Scripture. So, we can't condemn it on Biblical grounds. Now, what we can condemn is gluttony - which the Bible does have something to say about. And, Richards agrees. Gluttony is a sin. But, what is gluttony? Typically, we think of gluttony as being typified by the person who eats several pizzas by themselves. But, this view is too narrow - and isn't really Biblical.
The way the Bible terms gluttony makes it a form of idolatry - one where material desires are placed above our desire to do God's will. Gluttony is not something where we can look at someone and say "Ah. There's a glutton." It's very possible for a poor person who has very little to be a glutton - if they are continuously lusting after what they cannot afford. Similarly, a very wealthy person can be well-fed and well-adorned without their priorities necessarily being screwed up.
So, does capitalism make gluttons out of us? It's not at all clear that it does. Gluttony is a problem of the heart - and is a problem that afflicts non-capitalist societies, too. If gluttony is found everywhere - even where capitalism is not - then can it really be a problem with capitalism? I think not.
Another point under this is an aesthetic one. Some would point out that in the past, Shakespeare was entertainment. Now... well... NASCAR is. Surely our aesthetic taste has diminished as capitalism has risen! Here, Richards appeals to Ludwig von Mises's point - the comparison isn't fair. Yes, back in the day, music was produced by Bach, Handel, Beethoven. Today, music is produced by Rebecca Black and Lady Gaga. But, this ignores a simple fact: Bach, Handel, Beethoven were enjoyed almost exclusively by the upper classes of their day. The lower classes had no time for entertainment - and certainly no time to go into the city to hear a live symphony. Today, Lady Gaga can be heard by anyone with a radio, or with access to a computer, iTunes, and $0.99. The problem is that we're comparing upper class culture of the past with popular culture of today. We may like to believe that basically everyone was well-versed in Shakespeare back in the day - but the fact is that few people were even literate. Now that literacy is just shy of being universal we discover that people seem to like reading Harlequin romances. Is that the fault of capitalism? Not really. All capitalism did was make it possible for this desire to find fulfillment.
But, capitalism has done something else that is absolutely marvelous. It has made it possible so anyone can hear Bach, if they want to. All it takes is iTunes and $0.99 and you can listen to Bach as much as you want any time you want. This is a luxury that wasn't even thinkable in Bach's own day. Similarly, if I want to watch Shakespeare, I can - any time I want - all because of the wonder of Netflix.
This is not to say that there is no ugliness in our world - but blaming it on capitalism is something of a stretch. If anything ugliness is the result of people wanting the wrong things - but that's not a failure of capitalism. That's just a failure of humanity.
This is one of the hardest chapters to summarize, as Richards doesn't really attack the question in general terms - rather he just looks at a few specific cases.
Personally, I think this approach is fair. You typically don't hear people asking this as a general question - instead, they have some specific issue in mind.
For example: factory farms. Many (on right and left) consider the rise of the factory farm to be a great capitalist evil. Richards makes two good points on this. First, factory farms are largely the result of government subsidies which favor larger farms. Government subsidies are not a capitalist institution. Second, in as far as factory farms are actually out-competing smaller farms, it's for a simple reason: they can feed more people at a lower cost. Can we seriously say that food should be more expensive and less available? Advocating that is equivalent to advocating starvation for the poorest members of humanity. Not a tenable position.
The reality is that the free market gives people what they want, as long as enough people want it strongly enough. If people want locally grown produce and are willing and able to pay for it, the market provides (thus, we have farmers' markets popping up all over the place). If people want Taco Bell, the market provides.
Does the market produce consumerism? Not really - once we understand consumerism in a Christian context. The fact is that Christianity has nothing to say about "consumerism". The term appears nowhere in Scripture. So, we can't condemn it on Biblical grounds. Now, what we can condemn is gluttony - which the Bible does have something to say about. And, Richards agrees. Gluttony is a sin. But, what is gluttony? Typically, we think of gluttony as being typified by the person who eats several pizzas by themselves. But, this view is too narrow - and isn't really Biblical.
The way the Bible terms gluttony makes it a form of idolatry - one where material desires are placed above our desire to do God's will. Gluttony is not something where we can look at someone and say "Ah. There's a glutton." It's very possible for a poor person who has very little to be a glutton - if they are continuously lusting after what they cannot afford. Similarly, a very wealthy person can be well-fed and well-adorned without their priorities necessarily being screwed up.
So, does capitalism make gluttons out of us? It's not at all clear that it does. Gluttony is a problem of the heart - and is a problem that afflicts non-capitalist societies, too. If gluttony is found everywhere - even where capitalism is not - then can it really be a problem with capitalism? I think not.
Another point under this is an aesthetic one. Some would point out that in the past, Shakespeare was entertainment. Now... well... NASCAR is. Surely our aesthetic taste has diminished as capitalism has risen! Here, Richards appeals to Ludwig von Mises's point - the comparison isn't fair. Yes, back in the day, music was produced by Bach, Handel, Beethoven. Today, music is produced by Rebecca Black and Lady Gaga. But, this ignores a simple fact: Bach, Handel, Beethoven were enjoyed almost exclusively by the upper classes of their day. The lower classes had no time for entertainment - and certainly no time to go into the city to hear a live symphony. Today, Lady Gaga can be heard by anyone with a radio, or with access to a computer, iTunes, and $0.99. The problem is that we're comparing upper class culture of the past with popular culture of today. We may like to believe that basically everyone was well-versed in Shakespeare back in the day - but the fact is that few people were even literate. Now that literacy is just shy of being universal we discover that people seem to like reading Harlequin romances. Is that the fault of capitalism? Not really. All capitalism did was make it possible for this desire to find fulfillment.
But, capitalism has done something else that is absolutely marvelous. It has made it possible so anyone can hear Bach, if they want to. All it takes is iTunes and $0.99 and you can listen to Bach as much as you want any time you want. This is a luxury that wasn't even thinkable in Bach's own day. Similarly, if I want to watch Shakespeare, I can - any time I want - all because of the wonder of Netflix.
This is not to say that there is no ugliness in our world - but blaming it on capitalism is something of a stretch. If anything ugliness is the result of people wanting the wrong things - but that's not a failure of capitalism. That's just a failure of humanity.