‘Where is Unfettered Capitalism?’ and Other Questions on Evangelii Gaudium

Andrew M. Haines
By | December 3, 2013

Thanks to the generosity of loyal readers, Ethika Politika needs just $15,000 to continue publishing through the first half of 2016. Please become a supporter and make a sustaining donation today!

The usual suspects have emerged, picking up the disjointed pieces of Francis’s latest, Evangelii Gaudium, and hurling them toward each other. The truth will prevail in due course as it tends to do. For my part, I offer some simple, clarifying propositions for those not yet fully ensconced for the mêlée. (If you are, you can skip to the next item on your newsfeed.)

Bishop Celli reads the document of the Evangelii Gaudium during a presentation in VaticanTo begin, I wonder what “unfettered capitalism” really looks like. The pope doesn’t use this term exactly, but the idea is captured: he blames the rift between rich and poor on “ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation.” That’s pretty much the same thing. Yet while it’s easy to imagine that such unrestricted capitalism is synonymous with laissez-faire capitalism, maybe it’s not. And if it isn’t, then the sophomoric challenge to “Show me where in the world we have unfettered capitalism!” doesn’t hold any water. (Samuel Gregg’s latest at NRO is a study in missing this point: “there is literally no country in which markets operate with “’absolute autonomy’,” says Gregg. But what Francis claimed was that the “ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace” are suspect. Big difference there.)

To me, it looks like what Francis means by unrestricted capitalism is more intensive than extensive. It looks like he’s not worried at all (at least here) about the impact of government intervention and regulation on the expansion of free markets. Rather, he’s talking about “something new.” It’s obvious when he remarks on the nature of exclusion from such a schema: “those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised—they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the ‘exploited’ but the outcast, the ‘leftovers.'” This is something apart from an extensive, quantitative type of “autonomy.” It’s intensive and qualitative, and deeply misguided. But that’s not what anyone—the pope’s critics or proponents—seem to have in mind.

Another proposition is that paragraph 57 of Evangelii Gaudium is far too easy to overlook; yet it’s central to the meaning of any “economic” analysis offered elsewhere. Here, the Holy Father states:

Behind [the thirst for power and possessions] lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement.

This is difficult to hear—especially for those of us who enjoy exploring the value of “prudence,” even as it tends to occur somewhat separately from expressly religious claims. Still, Francis is quite right: a propensity to absolutize the “categories of the marketplace” is manifest. It might even be as simple as a failure to distinguish between economic judgments and moral ones. E.g., a statement like “Distribution in a free market tends to favor more accessible wealth” contains two types of judgments, but is often passed off as purely economic common sense. Even more disconcerting is the pope’s claim that the cause of this error is “a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God.” But as far as descriptive value goes it’s hard to argue his point: look around and find many armchair economists but relatively few devoted Christians. Causality can’t be inferred directly from this, but the cards appear stacked. And if they are, what does that mean?

Finally, I ask myself: does anyone remember Joseph Ratzinger? He’s been eclipsed in the media frenzy, and we’ve all but absolved him from our cultural memory. But if Francis is anything he’s personable; if he values one thing it’s an encounter with the other, and usually in a way that runs contrary to the popular narrative. If the Holy Father remembers the poor of Rome living in bus stops and train stations, it’s hard to imagine him forgetting the (spiritually) poor in his own country. Benedict didn’t write Evangelii Gaudium the way he wrote Lumen Fidei, but it’s impossible to imagine him not receiving an advance copy, as well as refraining from offering academic distinctions (if not pastoral ones) where required. Of course, I don’t know anything about how that might have happened. But it’s an assumption that seems more warranted than not.

Readers are invited to discuss essays in argumentative and fraternal charity, and are asked to help build up the community of thought and pursuit of truth that Ethika Politika strives to accomplish, which includes correction when necessary. The editors reserve the right to remove comments that do not meet these criteria and/or do not pertain to the subject of the essay.

  • Greg

    “[God] calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement.” There is inestimable value and richness in this phrase alone. The vast majority of people, 1) Have no idea of what it means to be fully human, they believe in the false notion that they are “only human; and 2) Have no idea that they ARE enslaved by one or more things. They mistake their enslavement for freedom.

  • Joseph Sunde

    But are the “ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace” all that prevalent? Gregg also notes that very few argue for this.

  • Andrew M. Haines

    I suppose such “ideologies” might not be prevalent in terms of a raw number of proponents; it’s more about who’s promoting them. Still, if my next idea is right—that “autonomy” signifies something other than ‘operational purity’—the number is way higher than anyone seems to think.

  • “But are the “ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace” all that prevalent? Gregg also notes that very few argue for this.”

    I’m afraid that they are quite prevalent, sometimes theoretically, sometimes merely in practice. I submit that the following, from Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute, necessarily entails “the absolute autonomy of the market.”
    Fr. Sirico wrote, “So long as individuals avoid forceful or fraudulent actions in their dealings with one another, government is to stay out of their business.” Acton Notes, vol. 8, no. 1, January 1998.

    When people speak of autonomous markets, of course they don’t mean a mob in a Wal-Mart fighting over a limited supply of some electronic gadget. They mean a market with rules against overt fraud or force, but not otherwise regulated by anyone. That is what the standard term “free market” means, and that is all that Pope Francis means here, it seems to me. To force him to achieve a precision in his words that no one else has to observe, is unreasonable.

  • R.C.

    I would identify “poverty,” “unfettered capitalism” and “inequality” a little differently, I think.

    Firstly, I would identify “poverty” as more than a lack of money. A lack of education, or physical security, the fear of an uncertain tenuous existence not knowing what will happen next, the lack of a stable family, the lack of profound religious education, the lack of a profoundly formed mystical devotional life, the lack of moral upbringing or experience of beauty, the lack of formation of conscience and virtues and character, are impoverishing of the human person as a PERSON, rather than merely the human consumer as a CONSUMER.

    When we think we can “alleviate poverty” through “welfare programs” we are thinking of the human person as a consumer: Fix their ability to afford consumption, and, well, you’ve fixed all that could possibly need fixing…right?

    Wrong. That attitude is “unfettered capitalism”: An ideology that says, if you fix the inequality of the poor as PARTICIPATORS IN MARKETS, you’ve fixed “inequality.”

    But that’s wrong. There is a vast inequality between two women with identical incomes, both well-fed, when….

    (a.) one is from an intact family, and the other a broken one;
    (b.) one had a (profound, informed) religious upbringing, and the other has never heard the word “God” defined;
    (c.) one has had the virtues modeled and taught, and the other has not;
    (d.) one works, the other receives handouts and thinks it’s the same;

    …and so on.

  • Rick Azar

    section d…
    What a big.. and not necessarily correct position. It is one that conservatives find comfortable. It allows them to assume that all recipients of a handout(Helping Hand) do not want to work. True..there are those who want to beat the system..but I’d bet most would take a job…instead of a handout. Assumptions..are far from being 100% correct.

  • The category of excluded would imply excluders (who must be distinguishable from marginalizers). Who are they? Who is taking time to entirely exclude people from society? Who is devoting resources to the task? What are they doing? Is what they are doing properly characterized as market action or something else?

    I’ve tried to chase this rabbit to the back of the warren before. I’ve never come up with an actual instance where excluders were not either:
    1. inchoate, not really existing boogeymen
    2. people taking non-market actions that were wrongly defined as market actions.

    Ultimately, without real world exclusion actually happening, what the pope is talking about is theoretical nonsense. finding those real world examples would be very helpful in getting a pretty big segment of American conservatism on side with the Pope. I don’t see much activity along those lines.