CHAPTER 18: THEECONOMIC SYSTEM

"Thus says the lord: for three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I willnot revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, . . .(and) trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth."(Amos 2:6-7)

In addressing the question of how we as Christians relate to wealth wemust also consider the economic system itself. A lot has been written

about the morality of economic systems, much of it pure bunk. There

has long been a conviction in certain political and theological circles that

capitalism itself as a system is to blame for much of the iniustice' oppres-sion and poverty in the world. This point of view periodically gains

strength before undergoing a counterattack from those who claim thatcapitalism is ordained by our faith and blessed by God. Both of these

views on capitalism, of course, are matched by complementary positive

and negative attitudes about socialism. And all of these convictions

about a particular economic system being the bane or blessing of the

world involve immense oversimplification and misunderstanding. I will

argue that we need to re-think and refine the distinctions we make be-tween economic systems and also that systems do not absolve individuals

of moral responsibility.The role of any economic system is to meet the two challenges of

production and distribution. The strength of capitalism is unquestiona-bly in the production of goods and services; the attractiveness of social-ism lies in its approach to their distribution. But what do we mean by

these two terms, capitalism and socialism? Broadly speaking, capitalism

is the economic system in which the means of production and distribu-

tion are owned by individuals andlor by non-governmental corporations,and in which production and marketing decisions are made by theseindividuals and corporations. Socialism is the economic system in whichthe means of production and distribution are owned by the state, whichdecides through central planning what is to be produced and how it is to

be distributed. (In theory it is to be the workers who own the means ofproduction, but so far it has always turned out to be the state.) However,

there are vast differences within each of these two categories between

economic systems that are nominally grouped together, greater differ-

ences than there are between some systems that we place on oppositesides of the capitalism/socialism dividing line. We will take a look at

these differences below. But first we well begin by examining the case

against capitalism.

201,

202 CouuoN SnNsr CnnrsrrANrrY

The Case Against Capitalism'We

have discussed the difficult challenge of living faithfully in anaffluent capitalist system, and we cannot ignore the charge that thissystem itself is sinful. The case against capitalism rests on (1)the moti-vation upon which capitalism is based, and (2) the observable results ofcapitalism.

First, the motivation: capitalism is based on each individual earningwhat they can for themselves through their own efforts. It cannot bedenied that this is essentially selfish. It is the profit motive that fuels thesystem, and this system depends on competition for its efficiencies.Compared to this, does not the socialist premise of cooperation, ofworking together for the common good and seeing that everyone is takencare of, seem preferable? Second, the results: in a number of capitalistcountries there is a vast disparity between the wealthy elite and thepoverty-stricken masses. Even in the United States of America there arenotable differences between o\rtr'ners and workers. Can we justify this?

Let us look at each of these in turn.

(1) "Capitalism is based on selfishness."Some defenders of capitalism try to deny this. This is silly. It is obvi-

ous to all of us that capitalism is indeed based on each of us looking outfor our own self-interest.

'We must admit that this is true. But is this

wrong? Does pointing this out constitute a criticism of the system? Onlyif it is a practical or moral weakness for a human economic system to bebased on selfishness. I am not at all convinced that it is, prouided thatsteps are taken to alleviate any unjust hardships brought about by this.

Let me spell out my assumptions here: first, that an economic systemis not an end in itself but a tool for reaching ceftain ends; second, thatthe first purpose of an economic system is to encourage adequate andefficient production, without which there is nothing to distribute; andthird, that this system should also promote (or at least be conducive to)certain socio-political goals, among which are freedom, equality of op-portunity, and the provision of basic necessities for those unable to pro-vide for themselves. Therefore, if a capitalist economic system meetsthese goals-and I will argue that some do and some don't-then itmeets our goals for an economic system, in which case it makes no senseto complain because it is based on selfishness.

Furthermore, if we grant that people are concerned first and foremostwith their own well-being-for which there is ample evidence in theworld and ample precedent in Christian theology-then capitalism isonly being practical in appealing to this. People are motivated by self-interest. We work harder and produce more when we realize some bene-fit from this ourselves. There is nothing demonic about this. And even ifwe wish we were different, we aren't-this is human nature. Is there

Tnr EcoNonrc SvsreM 203

anything wrong with an economic system being realistic and practical?Might it not function better if it is?

But, say the critics, capitalism encourages our selfishness and pro-motes competition over cooperation. This is a serious accusation thatdeserves careful consideration.

To begin with, it must,be stated again that so far as I can determine,selfishness is indeed a predisposition of the species. It is not caused bycapitalism. Capitalism does allow more freedom for selfishness and moreopportunity for the acquisitive, but some capitalistic systems also allowmore freedom and opportunity for everfthing else as well. But does capi-talism encourage this selfishness?

If we are honest we must say that what encourages this selfishness andacquisitiveness is zs. You and me. It is our "American Dream", the pur-suit of materialistic possessions as our goal in life. It is our turning ourbacks on God and on faith and depending instead on worldly well-beingfor our meaning in life. For us to blame "the system" is a cop-out. For usto blame capitalism while we live for ourselves alone is to compound oursin of selfishness with the hypocrisy of denying responsibility. Pogo wasright: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Having said that, however, we must also admit that capitalism hasproduced the affluence that results in more and more temptations to us.But this is because capitalism has succeeded in its primary purpose as aneconomic system, that of production. Certainly a successful consumer-oriented economy encourages us to want things for ourselves. But do weblame it for its success? Ought not the question to be: "Can we as asociety establish a way to complement capitalism's success in productionwith a just distribution? And are we as a society up to the moral chal-lenge of the temptations of materialism?" Indeed, these are the ques-tions. They remain to be answered.

As for competition, capitalism-or at least "free enterprise" capitalism(see below)-certainly encourages this. But is this bad? Yes and no.Competition for business should and does encourage efficiency, innova-tion, improvement in products and services, and lower prices. These arecertainly results to be desired. But competition also encourages an arrayof unethical practices to gain business and to make profits. Again, thequestion is whether we can sufficiently discourage the bad results whilewe benefit from the good results.

(2)"Capitalism is responsible for the vast disparity between the richelite and the poor masses, and so is responsible for much iniustice andsuffering in the world."

It is true that such disparities exist, in some places to a shocking andindefensible degree. It is also true that some of these places have eco-nomic systems which are called capitalist. Before we blame capitalism assuch, however, we need to look at the differences between various types

204 CouuoN SrNsn CHnrsrrANrry

of capitalism and to see whether there is a particular varianr of it thatmay be involved.

A Typology of CapitalismV\Ve need a way to categorize capitalist systems that takes into account

those differences which are relevanr to our discussion. We can do this bysetting up three pairs, or "dichotomies", to consider three different as-pects of any given system. Each dichotomy contains rwo opposing types,and while there are intergrades in the real world, this method will allowus to point out the most important distinctions. The three dichotomiesare: (i) elite vs. free enterprise capitalism; (ii) democratic vs. despoticcapitalism; and (iii) responsible vs. irresponsible capitalism.

(i) Elite vs. free enterprise capitalism: this first dichotomy has to dowith whether the system actually functions as an open competitive mar-ketplace. On the one side is elite capitalism, in which a few families orindividuals own a large percentage of the wealth, there is a consequentabsence of a large middle class, and control of the economic system is bythe elite. (Not surprisinglS such systems are often also "despotic" asdefined below.)

The second type in this first dichotomy is free enterprise capitalism.This is characterized by competition for the marketplace which is opento anyone who can produce the goods and services, unhindered by gov-ernment subsid5 monopoly, or other interference with competition.' Fora system actually to function as free enterprise capitalism there must beopportunity for individuals in the general populace to obtain educationand also to obtain access to capital and resources for new ventures.Without these there is no real access to the marketplace. Free enterprisecapitalism depends on actual competition or at leasr the real potentialfor it. In elite capitalism, where a small group of families may control thevast majority of land, capital, or other resources, this openness to com-petition is seen as a threat and is not present.

Thus the competition and the "efficiencies of the marketplace" thatare often thought of as intrinsic to capitalism are in fact present only infree enterprise capitalism and not in elite capitalism. There are manywho would define capitalism as necessarily involving free enterprise andcompetition. If we accept this argument then we have to say that elitecapitalism is in fact not capitalism at all. Instead it must be categorizedwith feudalism, a system to which it is in fact much closer than it is toother variants of capitalism. (This distinction should be helpful in for-eign policy decisions. [t is not enough to know we are supporring a non-socialist economy. Is it free enterprise? Or feudalism?)

(ii) Democratic vs. despotic capitalism: this second dichotomy is not

rRegulations establishing such things as a minimum wage, safery standards and pollutioncontrols apply equally to all pardes and thus do not interfere with competition.

Tnr EcoNourc Sysrru 2Os

concerned with the economic sysrem per se but with the political systemwith which it cohabitates. The question here is, to whom does the gov-ernment answer? Who's in charge? Who determines what rules shallgovern the society and its economic system?

Democratic capitalism is characterized by a functioning, representativegovernment-that is, it is governed by individuals who are chosen by thepopulace in fue and fair elections and who are rhen able to freely legis-late and enforce such laws and rules as they deem proper. Despotic capi-talism, on the other hand, is characterizedfo conrrol of the governmentby an individual or a relatively small group such as military iunta, anaristocracy or elite class, or a minority political parsy. It is importanr tonote the political basis of an economic system as one of our basic dichot-omies because there is a very real difference in the foundation of a capi-talism in which the rules governing the system are determined by afew-rules concerning wages, monopolies, taxation, use of natural re-sources, government benefits, etc.-and one in which these rules aredetermined by representatives who are chosen by the general populace.

(iii) Responsible vs. irresponsible capitalism: any economic system isgoing to have drawbacks and negative effects. They all have social costs.This third dichotomy is concerned with whether a society rakes steps tooffset these negative effects. To the extent that it does we can call itresponsible. To the extent that it does not address the known social costsof its economic system, it is irresponsible.

A capitalist economic system can encourage initiative, efficiency, pro-duction, freedom, self-sufficiency and the accumulation of wealth. Asociety may choose capitalism for these reasons. But when it does, it isalso choosing a system which leaves some people unable to provide forthemselves, whether for reasons of disabiliry age, industrial dislocation,lack of marketable skills, etc. For a sysrem to be responsible capitalism,it must include mechanisms that either enable these individuals to pro-vide for themselves or else provide basic necessities and decencies forthem. These mechanisms may include such methods as unemploymentinsurance, retirement and disability benefits, and anti-poverry health andwelfare programs. What these various programs do is redistribute thewealth created by a capitalistic system in order to compensate those inthe society who are unable to gain an adequate measure of this wealth ontheir own.

For an economic system to be responsible it is also necessary that itinclude adequate public health and safety regulations to ensure thar in-dustrial practices do not endanger employees or the present or futurepublic welfare, and also that it provide adequate protection of the natu-ral environment. To the extent that a society has adopted capitalism buthas not put into place these measures to protect its public and to providefor those in need, this is an economic system that can only be calledirresponsible capitalism.

205 Corarvror'r Ssxsr CHnrsrrANrry

By now it is obvious that there can be vast differences among eco-nomic systems that are all categorized as "capitalist." The difference be-tween one that is elite, despotic, and irresponsible and one that is freeenterprise, democratic and responsible is so great as to make one wonderhow they can be lumped together in any meaningful way.'We

began this section with the question of, whether capitalism is toblame for the unjustifiable disparity that is found in some societies be-tween the wealth of a few and the povefty of the masses. It cannot bedenied that the particular economic system in these societies at leastmade this disparity possible. It is much more problematic as to whetherthese economic systems ought rightly to be considered capitalist. Buteven if they were, given the great differences between capitalist sysrems,it does not seem reasonable to blame capitalism in general if a particulartype of capitalist system encourages gross inequities.

But are not poverty and injustice presenr even in the best of capitalistsystems? And are there not in all cases large disparities between thewealth of the owners and that of the workers?'We

must admit that there are. But there are problems with every eco-nomic system devised by human beings. What we need to do is to com-pare the benefits and problems of actual, feasible economic systems. [tserves no purpose to compare a real system-whether capitalist orsocialist-with the imaginary perfection of a system which has neverexisted (and which never will in any manner resembling perfection).

So: yes, we must admit that capitalism does indeed permit someindividuals to get very rich and others to be poor, and that even in aresponsible capitalist system that amelior"t.r th. effects of poverty thisdisparity exists. But we also need to remember that we said the goal ofan economic system is to provide equality of opportunitS not equalityitself. There will always be differences in wealth and lifestyle. The ques-tion is, does responsible, free enterprise capitalism provide sufficientequality of opportunity? And how does ir compare with the alternatives?

The Case Against Socialism

We have examined a couple of the popular arguments against capital-ism. Now we must take a look at socialism. I have said that we musrcompare real and imperfect economic systems with each other, not withimaginary perfect systems. I7hat is the reality of socialism, and what areits advantages and disadvantages?

In theory, socialism is the ownership of the means of production anddistribution by "the workers" or the people. In practice, however, social-ism means ownership by the state, which may or may not represent thepeople. The attractiveness of socialism lies in its approach to distribu-tion, as opposed to its effectiveness at production, and in its stated un-

Ise EcoroMrc SYsTEM 207

derlying principles-that is, socialism is not supposed to be based on ourself-interest but on the principles of providing for everyone, of distribut-ing the wealth in an equitable manner.

There are two principal types of socialism: "full socialism" in whichthe state owns all (or the vast majority) of business and industry andcontrols production and marketing decisions through central planning;and "partial socialism", in which the state owns maior businessesdeemed to be essential to the national good, and/or subsidizes certainindustries to save them from the impact of competition, and providescertain goods and services deemed to be essential at reduced or no cost,but still allows major sectors of the economy to operate as free enterprisecapitalism. Both types of socialism can point to accomplishments whichinclude (1) a vast improvement in education and health care for thegeneral populace, to the point where the education and medical care ofthe poor is in some cases better than that available to them even inadvanced capitalist countriesl and (2) a reduction in the disparity be-tween the poor and the rich, through supplying goods and services to thepoor and also through elimination or heavy taxation of the rich.

Ifhile their accomplishments may be similar, however, the negativeaspects of these two types of socialism are drastically different. Full so-cialist economies, without exception, involve governments that areundemocratic-"despotic", according to our earlier definition. They areall Marxist and outside of Africa they are all communist. The social costof their party-dominated political tyranny is immense: control of infor-mation, censorship, suppression of dissent and debate, and prison andexile for those who speak out in unapproved ways. Full socialist coun-tries match the despotic feudalisms in tyranny while surpassing them insocial services but also in the thoroughness of their suppression.

As an economic system the weakness of full socialism is merely that itdoesn't work very well at what it is supposed to do. Central planningand the lack of incentive have produced agricultural shortfalls, industrialmismanagement, shoddy products, permanent shortages in housing andconsumer goods, economic collapse staved off only by Vestern credit,and a shockingly low standard of living in what are supposed to bemodern industrial nations. These results have become so evident thateven the leaders of China and the Soviet Union have acknowledged themand are currently involved in efforts to institute some of the efficienciesof partial socialism or even of capitalism. Since they are attempting to dothis without renouncing their Marxist principles and without giving upthe political tyranny of the party it will be interesting to see what de-velops here, for it seems likely they will get either less economic reformthan they want or more political reform than they want.

Panial socialism is a very different mafter. In the first place, economicsystems which are partial socialist can and do exist in functioning de-mocracies. And they do permit many of the efficiencies of free enterprise

208 Couuou SrNse CHnrsrrANrry

in large sectors of the economy and so tend to have a better standard ofliving than comparable countries which are full socialist. Their primaryweaknesses as economic systems are (1) that subsidization of major sec-tors of the economy (either through ownership or subsidy) encouragesinefficiency and discourages the moving of resources into new areas thatmay be more productive, and (2) that the high tax rate necessary toprovide substantial governmenral services and subsidies reduces incen-tive. Together these two create a real danger of inefficiency and stagna-tion. r07e need to be aware that this is not just a nuisance: if it isunchecked it can result in economic collapse.

Capitalism vs. Socialism?When considering economic systems the question has too often been

put in terms of capitalism vs. socialism. But as we have seen, the differ-ences u.,ithin each of these broad categories are such as to make thedistinction between the two well-nigh useless excepr for propagandistarguments intended to produce heat rather than light. The similaritiesbetween democratic/free enterprise/responsible capitalism and democ-raticlpartial socialism are so strong that it is hard to say where socialisticcapitalism ends and capitalistic socialism begins. If one looks at theworld it is clear that the big differences are not berween these rwo, butbetween these as a group on the one hand and despotic elite capitalismgrouped with despotic full socialism on rhe other hand. Thus the bigdifference is not between the United States and Great Britain, for in-stance, but between the U.S.A. and the U.K. on one hand and countriessuch as certain feudalistic Latin American ones grouped with communisteastern European ones on the other hand.

It is a sad fact that too often when we have been called upon to "de-

fend democracy" we have in fact been defending one kind of despotismagainst another. The only reason a despotic capitalism should be pre-ferred over a despotic socialism is that the former usually isn't as good atdespotism and is somewhat less difficult to change. An elite/despotic/irresponsible capitalism (which might better be called feudalism) needsto be changed not only because of the evil it causes in itself, but alsobecause of the even more intransigent evil it will lead to if it is notreformed. The unfortunate aspecr of socialist revolutions is not that theydestroy a "capitalist" system. This particular kind of capitalism orfeudalism-one that allows so much human suffering as to engenderrebellion. one that refuses to reform itself-deserves and needs to bedestroyed. The unfortunate aspect is that all too often people exchangedespotic capitalist povefty for despotic socialist poverry.

My personal belief is that democratic, free enterprise capitalism canprovide a higher standard of living and more freedom than the socialist

Tnr, Ecorourc SYSTEM 209

alternatives and can still be responsible in providing for those who areunable to provide for themselves. The problem is that it is extremelydifficult to move from feudalism to democratic responsible capitalism.The reason for this should come as no surprise: it is plain old-fashionedselfishness. Those who have the power and wealth generally want tokeep it, even if it is more than they could possibly need. So those whohave the power to change the system all too often choose not to, tryingto hang on to everything instead of promoting peaceful reform thatwould still leave them well-off and comfortable, all too often forestallingpeaceful reform altogether. Ifthe evolution to a decent capitalism is thusprevented we need to keep in mind that at least some variants of social-ism would be considerably preferable to the status quo. (One has towonder why there has not been more encouragement of democratic capi-talist rebellions against feudalism. Have we so forgotten our own rebel-lious origins that any such enterprise is now seen as Marxist?)

To repeat: a cursory look at the nations of the world makes it clearthat the important differences in social responsibility and freedom arebetween the democratic types (of both capitalist and socialist economicsystem) and the despotic fypes, not between capitalism and socialism assuch. Therefore, if we as Christians are going to work to improve thesystems in which people live-as indeed we must-then we need to avoidpromoting or condemning capitalism or socialism as such. We needrather to oppose and to try to change those systems of botb kinds whichoppress and dehumanize, to recognize the strengths of the best systemsof both kinds, and to help find ways to eliminate the inequities andameliorate the injustices that exist in even the best of socialist and capi-talist systems.

The Challenge to Capitalism

I have said that free enterprise/democratic/responsible capitalism canprovide more freedom and a better standard of living-even for thosewho are unable to provide for themselves-than can socialism. The bigquestion, however, is not one of ability. It is one of will. The question iswhether we u,,ill be responsible, whether we can be capitalists withoutlosing our moral fiber and our very souls.

This is the challenge to those of us who profess to follow the Christwhile living in and enjoying the fruits of a capitalist system. This chal-lenge presents itself in the form of three dangers: (tr ) the danger of agrowing disparity between economic classes; (2) the danger of material-ism, of the rewards of the economic system becoming the goals andvalues of society; and (3) the danger of a selfish pseudo-individualismthat evades individual moral responsibility.

210 Couuot SrNsn CunrsrrANrry

Danger Number One: Class Divisionwe must be concerned about the possibility of serious and permanent

class divisions developing in our society. This could happen along thetraditional lines between owners and workers, and could also developbetween what we might call the comfortable and the marginal. we willtake a look at both of these.

Several very important changes have taken place since socialism devel-oped in response to rhe inequities of a capitalist system that allowedowners of industries to get rich while their employees worked long hoursin often unsafe conditions for low pay with no health or retirement bene-fits. First of all, the government has responded to justifiable public con-cern over the years with the enactment of legislation governing childlabor, minimum wage, health and safety conditions, overtime pag andother labor practices. Second, the right to collective bargaining has beenenshrined in law, and the results of these contract negotiations worked incombination with the supremacy and prosperity of American heavy in-dustry in the mid-twentieth century to produce a previously undreamt ofaffluence for skilled laborers.

Third, it is no longer clear in many cases just who the owners are,with millions of shares of stock being held by the public, many by indi-viduals but also many by pension funds, insurance companies and otherinvestment concerns.

So, for these and other reasons, we do not now often see our society asone divided into wealthy exploiting owners and poor exploited workers.

we have also had a chance to see rhe reality of socialism. It does not,after all, offer an alternative to working for someone else. The differenceis that in socialism the "someone else" is the state, which has the abilityto be as enlightened or as despotic as any private o!t/ner, although if youdon't get along with your employer it's harder to find a new one. k mightalso be noted that there are a whole set of special conditions involvedwhen one tries to do collective bargaining with a prime minister or ageneral.

Nevertheless, in spite of the great advances made by workers and inspite of having seen that socialism cannot offer them a worker's utopiaor even an alternative to working for someone else, we must take notethat there are still a couple of very troubling aspecrs to the divisionbetween owners and workers. The first problem is one of attitude: eventhough owners are dependent on workers'labor, and the workers aredependent on the owners'capital and initiative, too often both sides viewtheir relationship as adversarial. Those companies in which their interde-pendence is recognized and in which people are treated with respect tendto do better for both owners and workers in the long run. The f.act thatthis mutual respect is not as common in the United states as it ought tobe remains an impoftant underlying cause of our problems with produc-tivity and foreign competition.

THn' EcoNoutc Svstnu 211

The second problem is not one of attitude but is rather a glaring anddangerous disparity that we act as if we are blind to.'When our nationbegan there existed an economic democracy and equal opportunity be-cause of the high value of labor and the availability of land for thosewilling to work it. This was a unique historical combination, both ele-ments of which have long since disappeared. The industrial revolutiondevalued the real wofth of labor and increased the productive capacity ofcapital. Capital is now much more important to producing wealth thanis labor. A 1985 study reported that according to the Federal ReserveBoard only two percent of all U.S. families own "20 percent of all resi-dential property, 30 percent of all liquid assets, 33 percent of all businessproperty, 39 percent of all bonds, 50 percent of all stocks, andT'[, per-

cent of all tax-free financial holdings".3 It can be argued that the o\Mner-ship of such vast poftions of our capital by so few threatens ourdemocratic system. It certainly makes for very unequal opponunity.

But what can be done? Would I advocate a socialist approach to redis-tribution of capital? On the contrary [ recommend a very capitalist ap-proach to addressing this problem. Worker ownership of wholecompanies or of significant amounts of stock is a real and proven possi-biliry with established financing vehicles and enabling federal legisla-tion. The details involved are beyond the scope of this book, but sufficeit to say that the mechanisms are in place.

Some observers of the American scene would go so far as to say thatwe do not now have a democratic/capitalist economy but rather aplutocratic/capitalist economy. This claim is well presented by Louis andPatricia Kelso in Democracy and Economic Power,o in which the Kelsosargue that because of the disparities in capital ownership we do not nowhave the equality of opponunity necessary for free enterprise capitalism,or economic (in addition to political) democracy. They argue cogentlythat worker ownership plans would tremendously increase our produc-tiviry and prosperity and can be brought about through methods thathave already proven successful in a number of corporations.' Addition-ally, they propose a number of other ways to distribute our wealth

2l arn indebted for the background to these three paragraphs to louis O. Kelso and PatriciaHetter Kelso, Democracy and Economic Pouer: Exnnding the ESOP Reuolution (Ballimger

Publishing Company, 1986).sGrey Matter, "Auditing American Affluence: Are We Really Getting Richer?" (New York:

Grey Advertising, 1985), pp. 5-6. (Quoted by Kelso and Kelso).aKelso and Kelso, Op. Cir.sVe refer to tme worker ownership with advise and consent powers, not the pseudo-ownership plans sometimes used to facilitate management buy-outs of corporadons.

272 CouuoN Sensn CnnrsrrANrrY

through innovative, capitalist methods. I strongly recommend this lialebook to everyone. Whether or not we agree with their answers, if we areto create a better economic system and avoid a serious class division weneed to confront and respond to this and similar analyses of our currentproblems. Certainly the Kelsos'proposals are provocative enough to spurus to find new ways of addressing our situation within a capitalist frame-work.

The other class division that threatens our society is a division be-tween what we might call the comfortable and the marginal. The "com-

fortable" include most of our workers, the large middle class-thosewho have sufficient resources to afford decent housing, a new (or recentvintage) automobile every so often, occasional vacation trips, and nu-merous little amenities around the home. These people are also likely tobe covered by health insurance and a retirement plan at work. In mostcases they work hard for what they have, but at least they have some-thing to show for it: security and decencies and a lifesryle beyond thewildest imagination of their grandparents. Most of us are in the com-fortable middle class, even if maintaining this comfort causes us greatanxiety.

The "marginal", on the other hand, are in a different situation. Theycannot afford their own house-at least not one that you or I wouldconsider livable-and maybe not even a decent apartment. They areeither underemployed or unemployed, continually on the economicfringe, perhaps unable even to feed their families without governmentassistance.

The challenge of equipping and training rhose on government assis-tance is an old challenge which we have yet to meet. \7e seem unable tomove beyond ideology of the left and the right to find out what works,and our political lack of will is condemning yet another generarion tohopelessness and poverty. Ve must not let this happen.

A newer challenge is the increasing number of people with jobs whofall below the poverty level. Vhile there is (as always) some disagreementabout the meaning of the statistics, it seems clear that the shift fromtraditionally unionized and higher-paying manufacturing jobs to lower-paying service industry jobs is a contributingf.aeor to this. Vhatever thecomplex of reasons, there are more families than before in which one oreven both parents work full-time and yet they still remain financiallymarginal. And this situation is exacerbated by the facr that these peoplewho are least able to afford medical bills or to set aside money forretirement are also the least likely to be covered by health insurance andretirement plans.

We must not let our society become one in which a relatively fewprofessional, technical and managerial workers are well rewarded whilethe many struggle on the economic fringes, iust as we cannot let oursociety become one in which wealth is so concentrated in the hands of a

THn EcoNoMIc SYsTEM 213

few that we lose our equal opportunity. We must confront both aspects

of this problem with all the ingenuity and commitment we have, other-

wise our capitalism will cease to be democratic' will cease to provide

opportunity, will cease to be a supportable and defensible economic sys-

tem.

Danger Number Two: Materialism\(hen our economic system is based on the incentive of material re-

ward, and works well because of this, it also brings a gteat spiritual

danger. There is a real danger that we might come to equate success in

the economic system with a successful life, that we might come to iden-

tify the material rewards of the system as our goal in life and the source

of meaning for us. In fact it is readily apparent in the lives around us that

many people in our society have already made this grievous misidentifi-

cation. And we in the churches have not done enough to make clear the

difference between economic success and success as a human being.

I have already dealt at some length with this problem of money in

Chapter 1.7.\le need to understand that we cannot serve God and Mam-

monJ that to set economic reward as our goal in life is to fail as a

Christian and a human being.

Danger Number Three: Selfish Pseudo-IndividualismIndividualism that is informed by integrity and compassion offers one

of the great hopes of humanity, giving us the prophets and critics and

dreamers which we so badly need, and giving us also the hope that some

brave souls will lead us where we ought to go. However' an individualism

guided instead by a desire for material gain and emotional ease is noth-

ing more than selfishness-a heaftless, sinful selfishness that exacerbates

the dangers of division and materialism, eats away at the moral fiber of

our society and threatens to destroy the fabric that holds us together.

This is the kind of individualism that appeals to our great religious and

political principles in name while turning its back on them in fact.

Individualism can be responsible. It can lead people to be concerned

with the ethical implications of their actions and to accept responsibility

for what they do. It can give us the ability not to go along with othersjust for the sake of going along, and so allow us to base our actions on

what is right and what is wrong. It enables us to realize that our actions

as individuals do affect others, that we as individuals can and must do

our part.On the other hand there is that selfishness which masquerades as indi-

vidualism. In order to look out for themselves, this "individualism" leads

people to go along with the crowd, or to acquiesce in the questionable

practices of family, employer, or community. In the name of necessiry or

securiry or advancement, or iust out of cowardice, these people abrogate

their individual responsibility and take part in questionable or immoral

214 Couuox SeNse CHnrsrrANrry

or illegal activities because they are following orders, or because businessdemands it, or because if they don't somebody else will, or because it'sthe only way to get that extra dollar, or because it's simply easier.

And this is often done in rhe name of individualism, of 'looking ourfor number one". In fact this "individualism" actually surrenders individ-ual responsibiliry giving it up to superiors or to society or to ,,rhe sys-tem" or to whoever we see as our peer group. It is a perniciouspseudo-individualism. To call it individualism is fust ^ *^y of dressingup our base selfishness in high-sounding phrases.

when it comes to sharing of our own good fortune with others whoare in great need, this selfishness continues to try to sound like individu-alism: "I take care of myself; others ought to do the same." But this isjust a further evasion of personal t rpotriibility. All of us have benefitedfrom our education or our upbringing or our ir,n"t abilities (for whichwe can take no credit). Those of use who have received any measure ofsuccess have in fact benefited from our economic system, and we whobenefit jrom a system have a personal responsibility'ro "rri* those whoare unable to benefit from it. And we who are fortunate have a responsi-bility to assist those who are not. No amount of posturing about otherindividuals' responsibilities can remove our own risponsibility here.

so -in f_a* this pseudo-individualism-really selfishness masqueradingas individualism-evades individual responsibility and by so doing sacri-fices individual integrity. And in giving up individual integrity-#hetherfor popularify or monetary gain or whatever-it gives up itr right toclaim to be individualism. It is after alr nothing m-ore than selfisiness,the "antichrist" to real individualism.

There is an all-too-prevalenr attitude which encourages this pseudo-individualistic abdication of responsibiliry: the blaming-of individual orcorporate actions on "the system." This is done both by some who op-pose the qanr-cular system and by some who suppor the system butoppose individual responsibility.

Now it is of course true that any "system", aay society or culture, willencourage certain ways of acting, both good and bad. It is true that somesystems produce such horrendously ill effects that we are obligated ro rryto change them. It is also true that we musr work hard to .rrrir. that thelaws which govern our own sysrem prorecr the public health and welfareand provide aid for those who cannot make it on their own. Neverthe-less, while this concern about systemic effects is absolutely necessary invery many cases to blame "the system" is both whitewash and hogwash.

Decisions are made and carried out by individual human beinfs, act-ing.alone or in groups. IThether it is a technician or company prr"rid.rrr,janitor or engineer, sales team or board of directors, eachof itt. i"aiuia-uals involved is responsible for his or her acdons to God. If any of thesepeople make or carry out a decision to cheat or ro steal or to iollute orto do something that threatens health or safety or the public g;ood, they

THe EcoNoMrc SYsTEM 215

cannot escape their own personal moral responsibility by pointing to the

corporate structure or the capitalist system. Those individuals are not

robots; they have a choice. Those who choose loyalty to money or secu-

rity over loyalty to God have sinned. They are personally culpable. It is

time we quit excusing individuals because of "the system". The sooner

we do, the sooner "the system" will quit producing some of its bad

results which are after all nothing other than the cumulative effect of

individual actions.s

These are the dangers that constitute the challenge to democratic capi-

talism: class division resulting from an inequitable distribution of our

society's wealth; the spiritual emptiness of materialism; and the selfish

pseudo-individualism that avoids personal responsibility. The challenge

is not to an impersonal system. The challenge is to us-to you and me-

the individual citizens who make up this system. Through our individual

decisions on how to live, what to spend our money on, who to vote for

and which policies to advocate, we will determine the nature of this

society. 'We

can't blame it on a central planning committee or a ruling

elite. It's up to us.If we accept our individual moral responsibiliry if we are careful about

how we use our money and how we share it, and if we make sure to

extend our caring about others to our political and economic system'

then we will be able to make this a capitalist economy that does what it

ought to. But this will not be easy. It requires hard work. It means

attentiveness and diligence and an openness to new ideas and new meth-

ods, for we must find ways to open the system to all.If we are self-centered, if we act out of concern only for our own

wealth and privileges, if we do not share as individuals and as a sociery

then we are sinful. And not only that, but we will find that we stand in

risk of losing this system which we claim to value so highly' If this comes

to pass-if we lose our capitalism and our freedom because we could not(or would not) make it work for the benefit of all, because it collapsed

under the strain of class division and materialism and unrestrained

selfishness-then we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

6We can take some comfoft at the fact that 6nally, toward the end of the twentieth cenrury,prosecutors have begun applying crimind statutes to corporate officers who make deci-sions that (for instance) cause death or iniury to a worker or to the public, and chargesbrought against these individuals include manslaughter and homicide charges. This shouldhave a salutary impact on people recognizing their individual responsibility.