Inevitably, when discussing
capitalism versus socialism versus the Just Third Way, somebody will shift the
basis from what is the right and just thing to do, to what is the most
expedient or that gets them what they want, regardless of the cost to others.
Take, for example, this
comment we got in response to some statements regarding the moral superiority
of the Just Third Way to either capitalism or socialism. It is something of a non sequitur, but that’s
par for the course in these discussions:
 |
| Niccoló Machiavelli: the end justifies the means. |
I think the expansion of
ownership of capital IS a good idea. Again, the point I am making is about the
failure of political factions in this country to communicate adequately about
their ideas, and listen to their opponents ideas, leaving us with a half
understanding of our adversaries' political camps. For the people I talk to,
capitalism means a society based around money. In your language, it is the
worship of Moloch. For the people I talk to, socialism means a society based
around people. It is highly semantic. I am making a more abstract point here
which I think you are missing. I am not advocating for socialism but a shared
understanding of social issues which will lead us into a future of greater
freedom, justice and community. Those are the true goals of our society, as I
see it, and I think you would agree. Any economic system is just a means to
achieve those goals.
Right off the bat
we saw one of the chief problems with both the capitalists and the
socialists. That is the fixed belief
that the end justifies the means.
Both capitalists
and socialists are obsessed with this.
An adherent of the Just Third Way will say something along the lines of
how the natural law principles of the Just Third Way make justice more
likely. Almost immediately comes the
reaction, which differs only in the name of whoever is reacting:
·
The
Capitalist: “Can you name another system besides capitalism that has lifted
more people out of poverty? Socialism
doesn’t. More people have been killed in
socialist countries than anywhere else.”
·
The
Socialist: “Can you name another system besides socialism that cares about
people? Capitalism doesn’t. More people have died of starvation and
neglect in capitalist countries than anywhere else.”
Do you see the
problem here? For both the capitalist
and the socialist, the issue of whether their respective systems are in
accordance with justice is completely irrelevant. All that matters are the results; the end
justifies the means.
 |
| Henri de Saint-Simon |
Are the claims of
the capitalists and socialists correct?
That was not the issue. Get
bogged down in trying to prove that their claims are factual, and you will never
settle anything. All you will end up
doing is trading insults and then blows.
The real issue is whether
people and their institutions are God-centered, or people-centered. Capitalism (as the term was invented by the
socialist Louis Blanc in 1850) means a system that is centered on a private
sector financial élite. Socialism as
described by Henri Saint-Simon in Le
Nouveau Christiantisme in 1825 is centered on the abstraction of the
collective
The Just Third Way, as is
clear from the CESJ Core Values, is personalist and centered on God. It thereby tries to respect the human person
as a being made by God.
Any system, whether
capitalist or socialist, that fails to respect the rights of every single human
being to life, liberty, and private property, along with the means of
obtaining, securing, and enjoying the same, is contrary to natural law and thus
to the Just Third Way. You may not violate a single person’s rights even to
gain the greatest good.
And that’s the bottom line,
isn’t it? Not whether abstract millions
have starved or profited, but whether you are starving or profiting. Why should your rights be violated to placate
an abstraction?
#30#