Every
so often someone expresses concern over CESJ’s use of the word “capital.” Isn’t this a bad word? Wouldn’t it be better to use a friendlier
term like “productive” or “creative” wealth? After all, we don’t want to alienate
potential supporters who are rightfully outraged at the abuses we see in the
capitalist system.
These
are good points. Perhaps the place to
start in responding to this issue is to quote the ever-quotable G.K.
Chesterton. As he said, “If the
use of capital is capitalism, then everything is capitalism.” His point was that, if you’re discussing
economic life, you can’t avoid using the word capital, at least, not if you
want to be understood, unless, of course, your goal is to return to a way of
life in which you use no technology of any kind, including a rock to throw at animals
when hunting. Chesterton’s issue was
with capital-ism, and (even more)
with social-ism, not with capital or society.
We think that using the term “productive” or
“creative” wealth might be more
problematical than the term capital. “Wealth”
is to many people today a dirty word, almost as dirty as the word “power.” The words are almost inevitably linked in a
pejorative manner, e.g., “the wealth
and power of the Rothschilds,” “the wealth and power of the ‘banksters’,” “the
wealth and power of Wall Street, the corporations, anybody on this week’s
list,” and so on.
Thus, we don’t think that the problem is the word capital, but the reality of capital-ism.
Similarly, the problem is not with consumption, but with consumer-ism; consumption is, after all, the only
legitimate reason to produce in the first place. It’s pretty much the same with any other
“ism.”
Both capital and labor are important because
ownership links us to the means of production.
The problem comes when the link is broken or attenuated, whether to
human labor (assuming we’re not slaves, we own our labor), or to capital.
Socialism, for example, breaks the link entirely. Socialism and certain forms of “ethical
capitalism” break the link between labor and capital, and the human person, by
asserting that all rights come immediately from the State or the collective,
and can be revoked as expedient in response to the demands of the State or
collective. (“Christian socialism” makes
the same mistake in a slightly different way that we won’t get into here.)
Capitalism attenuates the link between labor and
capital, and the human person, by maintaining the absolute character of natural
rights — but effectively restrict the exercise of rights, especially property
in capital, to an elite. The more
extreme forms of capitalism even assert that the necessarily limited exercise
of property is itself absolute — for the elite who own capital, not for
non-owners.
The upshot is that socialism takes away rights
themselves and turns other workers into enemies who compete for your job (envy),
while capitalism takes away “only” the exercise of rights and your job as well
(greed). This is why, while some moral
authorities “only” harshly criticize capitalism (as they should), they condemn
socialism outright.
Both capitalism and socialism are inherently
divisive. The former pits owners against
non-owners, while the latter pits non-owners against each other.
The whole point of the Just Third Way, however, is
to unify, not divide. That is why we
list “Participative Justice” first among the principles of economic justice. Because a just return on our productive
efforts once we’re participating is equally important, we list “Distributive
Justice” second, but only because you can’t produce anything and get a just
distribution until you’re participating.
Third is “Social Justice,” because if there are barriers preventing
people from participating or receiving a just distribution commensurate with
their inputs, or there are systemic or institutional flaws that prevent the
system from operating justly for the benefit of all, people need to organize to
remove these barriers or fix the system so that it operates properly.
The three principles of economic justice, however,
Participative Justice, Distributive Justice, and Social Justice, have even more
baggage than the word “capital,” especially the latter two — but we cannot get
away from them; they’re essential to describing and understanding the Just
Third Way. We do, however, have to make
certain that we define our terms as clearly and precisely as possible before we
enter into meaningful dialog with anyone.
In our opinion, therefore, we think we should stick
with the word “capital” to describe the non-human factor of production, even if
the first time we say it we add a parenthetical, such as “i.e., the non-human factor of production, or productive or creative
wealth.” If someone has a problem after
that, either he or she wasn’t paying attention and probably missed the whole
point anyway, or has other issues that are not being articulated, and on which
a more focused, one-on-one approach is needed.
