Capitalism and Christianity

From my journal last night:

It seems to me that we expect too much of capitalism if we expect it (or any other economic system that might be proposed to replace it) to keep people from being greedy, or to force people to act morally in general.  While a given economic system may provide an atmosphere that is more or less conducive than other economic systems for generally moral behavior, a society is not defined solely (or even primarily) by its predominant economic system.  There are a whole host of facets to a society; a partial list might include artistic, psychological, spiritual, cultural, etc. facets.  Each of these facets could be defined by a principle, philosophy, or system.  A healthy society will be composed of and structured by a number of different definitions, each for its associated facet.

We can't expect capitalism to provide the superstructure for general social morality any more than cubism or literary criticism would be fit to tell us how to structure our financial markets.

The initial spark for these thoughts was reading an article about The Simple Way, a group of Christians in Philadelphia that has moved into a desperately poor neighborhood in an effort to be obedient to Christ's commands.  One of the founding members wrote a book called "The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical".  The article says the book is, among other thing, "an indictment of capitalism".  The article goes on to talk about how a large fire in their neighborhood caused The Simple Way to do a number of things that really helped the residents of the neighborhood:

They raised more than tens of thousands of dollars for families, and used it. They repaired roofs and siding on damaged houses; they paid moving expenses and the first and last months' rent for families who had to relocate. In the case of one woman, who simply wanted to sell her severely damaged property and move on, they bought it. In fact, unexpectedly, The Simple Way not only wound up raising a considerable amount of money, but also acquiring a sizable chunk of their block. In the space of a few years, they'd gone from talking about planting gardens to building playgrounds.

Reading that, it occurred to me that nothing that they did was inconsistent with capitalism.  Nothing there indicated (though it may indeed be the case) that The Simple Way would advocate a greater governmental role in the economy (i.e., less-free markets, less capitalism).  This guess of mine was supported by a review of the book on Amazon.

So if The Simple Way's choices and actions are not a repudiation of capitalism, per se, but they are quite obviously a radical departure from something, then what are they a repudiation of?

My guess is that what that neighborhood lacked, what society as a whole lacks, is simply love.  "All" The Simple Way did was love their neighbor.  Their actions were indeed fundamentally different from those of the vast majority of Americans.  But the difference wasn't primarily that they denied the existence of private property, or worked to thwart the existence of free markets.  What they oppose by their actions and example is the idea that we can primarily be isolated, self-pleasing, individualistic consumers and still plausibly be following Christ

To my way of thinking, they didn't (and don't) repudiate capitalism, per se, as much as they repudiate the predominantly accepted moral structure of contemporary American society.  In fact, the wealth that they have leveraged in dozens of different ways is the direct result, certainly, of private property, competition, and free markets, and only possibly of corruption, selfishness, and greed.  They wouldn't have been able to do as much good as they have if the society they came from had a significantly less-free economy.  If capitalism works as its proponents expect it to, there will be more than ample resources generated by the able-minded and able-bodied for the members of a sufficiently moral society (not government) to voluntarily distribute to those who genuinely can't provide for themselves.

In short, the problem with our society is not that its economic system is a form of capitalism, but that too many of its people are not morally grounded enough to generously give to those in need.  In fact, it's arguable that government policies that have encouraged perpetual government support and discouraged intact families (and responsible men) in ways that are counter to the core principles of capitalism have been far more to blame for the problems of poor neighborhoods like The Simple Way's than the straw man of "greed" that opponents of capitalism want to point fingers at.  More simply put, a broader solution to these problems would likely include more love, greater involvement of the wealthy in the lives of the poor, but also more capitalism.