What's Wrong with Capitalism?
These words of Marx and Engels (Communist Manifesto, 3:I:a) suggest that Christianity may be initially quite useful for the socialist cause:
Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.
Even though the abolition of all religion is ultimately a necessity in their suggested system, Marx and Engels recognize the practicality of incremental progress toward their goals. Hence, they welcome a slight retasking of Christian ideas in order to facilitate societal drift toward socialism, and ultimately toward communism.
Marx and Engels perceive that all conflict is traceable to class struggle, and that class struggle is economic at its core. Redistribution of wealth is a key to neutralizing the conflict and liberating the oppressed from their oppressors. For Marx and Engels, class struggle is an economic issue that can only be resolved politically, hence their political efforts toward an economic final solution. Capitalism represents, for them, a system that enables continuing oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Capitalism is a great enemy to be conquered, and one that will naturally fall—if and when the proletariat realizes their great strength, unites, and acts in accordance with Marx’s and Engels’ designs.
For Christians, it is reasonable to wonder whether Marx’s and Engels’ drafting of Christianity as somewhat (and initially) useful is actually even compatible with Christianity. If the Bible is the sole authority for Christian understanding and ethics, then is there a biblical discussion that should guide the church’s thinking on economics? If Scripture is God-breathed and useful for equipping us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17), then we should expect some economic guidance in its pages. In that expectation we are not disappointed.
The first structured economic model we discover in Scripture is that given by God to Israel in the context of the Law, the Mosaic Covenant. Israel was to enter into the land of Canaan, enjoy the fruit of the land, give a tithe (primarily of firstfruits) to the tribe of Levi in order to facilitate the Levitical system of worship (Levi was a tribe not given a land inheritance, thus each of the other tribes were commissioned, through the tithe, to help Levi subsist). The charging of interest was disallowed by law, and there were rules governing how debts and debt-enslavements were to be handled. Families within tribes were not allowed to sell their land outside of their families, in order to maintain a level of land ownership that could accommodate the families. In this context there was substantial economic freedom, but with legal limitations on greed. In other words, certain specific manifestations of greed were illegalized within the community of Israel. Importantly, the overarching governing principle for Israel at that time was theocracy. God was with them, leading them, and ruling them. The Law was not designed to work in a non-theocratic context, and its purpose was provisional (see Gal. 3).
In the church age (which began at Pentecost, a short time after Christ fulfilled the Law), there is not such a structured and regulated approach to the legal aspects of economics. Instead, there is a focus on individual character. For example, Christians are to be free from the love of money (Heb. 13:5), to look out for the interests of others (Phil. 2:4-5), to give freely and not under compulsion (2 Cor. 9:6-8), not to discriminate based on financial standing (James 2:1-4), and to understand that all we are given is for the purpose of good deeds (2 Cor. 9:8-11).
In the church model there are no specific guidelines given for economic legislation. The church is not a national entity governed by legislation. Instead, it is a living organism—a group of individual believers existing and functioning together in and as the body of Christ. The focus of the Scriptures is that believers submit to a process whereby God works in them to conform them to the image of Christ. The expectation is that believers ought to demonstrate in ongoing fashion, that continual transformation in their thoughts, speech, and deeds (e.g., Rom. 12:1-2).
So how should believers view private property, individual and corporate profits, commodification of labor, and the like? It is notable that Scripture doesn’t condemn these things—in fact, money itself is never described as evil. The Bible is specific, however, about the central economic problem: “For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Tim. 6:10). Literally, the phrase could be translated “a root of all the evils.” What is so wrong with a love (or affection, φιλαργυρία) for money that it could be described as a root of all the evils?
Jesus warned, “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” (Luke 12:15). Greed takes the focus off of what life is really about, and emphasizes temporal things. Essentially, greed is a fantastically effective and attractive gateway to idolatry.
Paul warns believers that greed should not even be named among believers—there should be no hint of it among those who follow Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:3). In fact, Paul adds that believers should consider themselves as dead to such things as greed—which he equates to idolatry (Col. 3:5).
Peter observes that greed is a primary motivation for false teaching (2 Pet. 2:3). So while greed often manifests itself in economic areas, it is not an economic problem. Nor is it a political problem. Paul describes in Romans 1:29 how greed is an inherent part of human depravity. It is not merely a class struggle or political issue, it is a spiritually rooted problem. It cannot be solved by political or legislative means—either with Marx’s and Engels’ system or even a more democratic one. Only by the internal and spiritual transformation of individuals by the power of God, is there progress in remedying the root problem. Of course that doesn’t mean that political systems are irrelevant or unworthy of Christians’ time and investment. But despite the proclamations of Marx and Engels, political and economic pursuits have no ability to fix the problem.
Whats’ wrong with capitalism? The same thing that is wrong with every other thing that human hands touch—it’s us. Changing the system or the governing party can’t fix what ails us. That doesn’t mean we ignore such things (thank God we can have some impact in these areas!), it just means that we need to adjust our expectations and our focus. Let’s focus on the core issue, deal with the symptoms where we can, and not confuse the root problem with its symptoms.
Christopher Cone Bio
Christopher Cone (ThD, PhD) is the President of Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, pastor of Tyndale Bible Church and author and editor of several books.
- 2 views
“Capitalism” gets blamed for a whole lot of things that are not economic-system related. Nowadays it’s an easy and popular target.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I suppose there are a few different ways one can learn economics. One way would be to read a lot of books very often written by people who have read a lot of books and developed their own economic theories. The other way to learn economics is to participate in the real world. I see value in the first way but I really don’t think it compares to the real world. As a business owner for 15 years (not huge businesses but multi-million dollar ones), I have observed some things about economics and capitalism that have lead me to rethink much of what I read in books or heard from conservative radio show hosts.
The fact is that there are weaknesses in capitalism. The basic building blocks of capitalism are flawed and idealistic. For example, the idea that a largely unregulated free market will sort of work out its own problems in the best interest of the consumer is absolutely false. There is a need for government to regulate capitalism or very bad things happen. I could discuss at length what I have seen in my industry that leads me to that conclusion.
I do believe that capitalism is the best option. But not the extreme unregulated capitalism that some long for. Capitalism needs plenty of checks and balances. People like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are examples of people that know that in spite of the fact that they heavily profited from capitalism. After you live in that world for a while, I think most successful capitalists start to mellow a bit.
And when you search the Bible, you see capitalistic principles taught but in a very moderated way. Look at OT Israel and you see many examples. OT Israel’s financial system was probably more liberal than what we have the US and certainly far more liberal than what the Glen Becks of the world would want. I don’t see the Bible designating any financial system as the proper one. It seems to grant wide latitude in that area in fact.
The strongest defenders of capitalism over the years (‘strongest,’ not ‘loudest’) have consistently held a high view of law and order. Capitalism, or “free markets,” to use a broader term, absolutely depends on protected rights in order to work.
What’s supposed to happen is that people trade what they value less for what they value more and doing this en masse determines what prices sellers are able place on their products and services (too high and trade declines, too low and shortage occurs). This fails if property is not protected and/or if the process of exchange is corrupt (i.e., cheating is not trade and theft is not trade).
Have to plug Money Greed and God again (Jay Richards). Great short fun read, but it helps counter some very popular myths about capitalism.
I hasten to add that you don’t have to own a business to experience capitalism. We experience it every time we shop.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
As much as I despise talk radio, I certainly have a good grasp on what conservatives today believe about capitalism. And one of their major foundational beliefs is that the less the government is involved, the better. That sounds good to people that have experienced capitalism by casual shopping, but those who understand it better (and yes, business owners in general do understand it better than casual shoppers) know the problems. Those problems go way beyond protection of property.
We could consider the FTC which regulates advertising. While that agency is not perfect, it protects consumers from capitalists. I find it fascinating how deceptive advertising used to be before the FTC. In the area of natural health products for example, it was mind-boggling. The FTC has done much to clean up that industry but it is the conservatives who are always trying to scale back its power. I am not saying the FTC does not have problems, but that kind of regulation is necessary. I know exactly what would happen today in that industry if the FTC was not policing it.
Perhaps your version of capitalism is different than the typical conservative version or the Ayn Rand perspective. But even so, I don’t believe capitalism in any form is God’s sanctioned economic system..
It’s not about who’s version of capitalism… It has more to do with putting it in historical perspective and differentiating between essential and nonessential attributes.
Lots of dogs have fleas but we don’t define a dog as “a four legged creature with fleas.”
But conservatives emphasize less government for good reason—not because zero government would be a good idea but because we have a problem of both excessive quantity and poor quality of government at this point. We are so, so far past protecting property rights and safeguarding honest trade and very deep into engineering by supposedly enlightened experts far away from where the trade is occurring.
Markets are best protected and guided (and regulated) locally. It’s just history. Think of it as a continuum. At one end you have anarchy, at the other pure socialism. The ideal is somewhere in between but there are lots of unhealthy places in between.
Conservatives are not anarchists (though some almost talk that way sometimes… to the degree they get that way, they are not conservative) and are certainly not socialists. Conservatives have differing beliefs as to how far off center our current situation is, but all agree that we are off center toward the socialist end. Some talk like we’re a hairsbreadth from Marx. Sensationalists crying wolf. But the trend is definitely toward larger and larger government and a shrinking private sector. The word for this is centralization—socialism. So yes, we cry “Less government!” But it doesn’t follow that we don’t want good law, wise oversight, protection of rights, etc. “Less” does not equal “zero.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I agree with much you have written here except the idea that markets should be regulated locally. That is a good example of an idea that a college professor might write in a book but anyone with real world business experience knows to be impossible.
First, it is inefficient. Impossibly inefficient in fact. How much money would it cost for every state or even every county coming up with their own FTC? For example, does it make sense that every county or even every state have a team of doctors studying every clinical study to determine what claims can be made about vitamins? And that is just one of thousands of industries that would have to be handled.
Secondly, it is idealistic. There is no way that a tiny county can invest the resources into knowing all the nuances of trade in every possible area.
And of course, the biggest problem with that idea is that commerce is not local anymore. It is global.
Yes, trying to move all regulation to the local level is just a bad idea that might have worked in the Dark Ages but not today.
I am not saying the federal government is doing everything right. Far from it. But I certainly have no reason to believe that my state or county would.
That being said, I am glad you acknowledge there needs to be a balance. I am more concerned about those conservatives who really believe that the only purpose of government is the military.
Discussion