Book 13 - Ch. 5 (1 of 1) - The Almighty Dollar: Self-serving and other-sacrificing
Religious justification of exploitation and control has an ancient history. It did not start with Christians using god to justify slavery, colonization, and other evil realities. Leaders from various times and places have used religious beliefs to validate their authority and turn their use of that authority into an unquestionable reality. The Pharaohs of Egypt situated their authority in their divine identity, as did the emperors of Rome. The Sadducees of Jesus’ time drew their authority from their religious identity. The emperors of Japan also attributed their authority to a religious cause. Kings, nobles, popes, and bishops debated who possessed divine authority until modern times. Some Muslim rulers situated their authority on religious grounds. I suspect most political regimes have had some religious or quasi-religious validation. Even atheistic communism built a shrine around the preserved body of Vladimir Lenin. They too produced a regime that could not be questioned.
While some of these “divinely appointed” rulers demonstrated altruism, they also demonstrated that the gods usually endorse the interests of the powerful. We ought not to assume that we have outgrown the use of faith in a certain religion or ideology to deify the interests of the powerful, making those interests beyond question.
The popular ideology of laissez faire capitalism, which suggests that we should put complete faith in the market, continues this ancient practice of assuming that the interests of the powerful and wealthy are unquestionable. Should we be surprised that belief in laissez faire capitalism has become so pop-ular in the wealthiest country in the world and especially among many of the wealthiest members of that country? Ac-cording to a recent Oxfam International report, those in the top 1% of our world population were projected to have as much wealth as the other 99% by the end of 2016. Oxfam has also found that the 8 wealthiest men in the world have more wealth than the poorest half of the world’s population (approximately 3,500,000,000 people). The wealth disparity is growing more extreme. The poorest half of the world had as much wealth as the 388 wealthiest individuals in 2010; over the last five years, the wealth of the poorest half of our world has dropped by 41%. Is it shocking that the wealthy in an extremely unequal world, filled with dire poverty and hunger, would adopt a philosophy assuring them that they are in the right and the world economy is just? Is there a period in history where the powerful did not look for an ideological, ethical, theological, or economic justification for their position? We should continuously consider whether our economic, ideological, ethical, and theological justifications are at the service of a personally beneficial status quo. Sadly, this possibility goes entirely unexamined because of our incredible capacity to rationalize.
Rationalizing involves thinking backward by starting with an answer rather than a question. The result of rationalizing is a seemingly reasonable argument, but the argument is not built on an authentic search for truth. Instead it is built on an assumption, which can be a rotten and inadequate foundation. Everyone must be cautious in evaluating their own logic, since everyone, myself included, is susceptible to rationalizing. A useful consideration is: does our argument, regardless of how convincing it seems, serve our interests or our sense of self-righteousness? While a self-serving answer does not mean we are wrong, it has often accompanied the acceptance of injustice by otherwise good people.
Every great evil in human history was built on an argument that many “normal” people would have considered reasonable. From an early age, young people are taught to avoid punishment, to seek reward, to not question authority, and to fit in. This is done with the best of intentions, as we assume that this will teach young people proper behavior. However, if large portions of society never move beyond this approach and don’t learn to think for themselves, then whole societies can easily be swept up in dangerous, albeit supposedly reason-able, ideas of those in authority.
THE IDEALS WE CLAIM AND THE VALUES WE LIVE
It might be scary for Christians to consider that we often employ the same thinking that historically led to realities that we identify as evil. The logic that allows for drone bombings is the same as the logic attributed to those who crucified Jesus; “let one man (woman or child) die so the nation will survive (for the good of the nation).” The atomic bombings, which killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, were validated by this logic. Some would argue that the atomic bombings and drone attacks saved lives in the long run, but those who crucified Jesus could have appealed to a similar argument to justify their actions. Had large crowds began to view Jesus as a king, or had some Roman soldiers adopted a life of nonviolence, the Roman Empire would have been forced to violently suppress this movement. Further-more, if the Empire failed to make it clear that common people could not challenge the status quo, more people might have started questioning those in authority. The result, they might have reasoned, would have been a chaos in the Empire that would serve no one.
When it comes to climate change, pollution, sweatshops, healthcare, education, and various “hot button” issues, we often avoid conversations involving ideals that we claim to cherish such as human dignity, our responsibility to future generations, and respect for the rights of others. Unfortunately, a consideration of the status quo often is bypassed when “the economy” might be affected by needed changes. It’s reasonable to consider the economy, as it impacts people, but should it be treated as the ultimate consideration? In Great Britain a 1749 pamphlet defended slavery on the economic basis of its importance to the shipping industry. While the trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished, its rationale is alive and well in conventional economic thinking. In fact many of the same arguments that were used to defend slavery continue to be used to defend the exploitative economic practices employed in sweatshops:
DIFFERENT NAME, SAME LOGIC
The Poor are content with (SLAVERY) Sweat-shops.
(SLAVERY IS) Sweatshops are the key to na-tional prosperity.
(SLAVERY IS) Sweatshops are good for slaves/workers.
(SLAVERY) Sweatshops would be too difficult to abolish.
(SLAVERY IS) Sweatshops are essential to cer-tain industries.
(SLAVERY IS) Sweatshops are acceptable in this culture.
(SLAVERY IS) Sweatshops are legal.
Abolishing (SLAVERY) Sweatshops would threaten the structure of society.
(LIVING IN SLAVERY) Working in sweat-shops is better than starving to death.
When our interests demand that we sacrifice our values, the price of our sacrifice is usually paid by someone else. Our logic would likely not be accepted if we had to pay the price. We sacrificed our desires to not harm civilians in the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Vietnam, as well as in our current drone bombing campaigns. At the same time, we disparage Malcolm X, who simply advocated the application of our national logic in confronting the evil realities of racism that he experienced within our own country. In criticizing nonviolent resistance, Malcolm argued:
"It's hard for anyone intelligent to be nonviolent. Everything in the universe does something when you start playing with his life, except the American Negro. He lays down and says, 'Beat me, daddy.'"
He applied this logic to the civil rights movement, objecting, “You don't have a peaceful revolution. You don't have a turn-the-cheek revolution. There's no such thing as a nonviolent revolution.” I suspect the reason that we are uncomfortable with Malcolm’s application of our logic is that, in this case, America was the oppressive reality. Violence against a “bad guy” and the civilians who happen to be associated with him is only acceptable when someone else is the bad guy or the associated civilian.
Martin Luther King, Jr. offered an alternative to violence that resisted the need to demonize the oppressor and instead courageously sought reconciliation. He did not share America’s faith in the salvific potential of violence, commenting:
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy… Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that."
The vision and ideals of King, who is honored as a national hero with his own holiday, ironically, are largely ignored by our society. King’s insight regarding the weakness of violence may appear naïve, but when one considers the trillions of dollars spent on warfare in the last few decades, and the millions of lives that have been lost as the result of human violence, might our faith in violence be misplaced? Can anyone claim that decades of military involvement and investment in the Middle East have left the region and world significantly more peaceful?
Malcolm X and Martin Luther King’s views were more complicated than the above quotes express, and both evolved as they searched for a solution to racism in America and a just response to various other social concerns. Both modeled selflessness by putting their own lives on the line in the struggle against injustice. One area where they agreed was in their criticism of the use of violence in Vietnam. Neither could understand why so many resources were being expended opposing a questionable injustice abroad when there was such a clear need to grapple with America’s own unjust impulses and the legacy of those impulses. Martin and Malcolm’s values and ideals led them to question whether the pursuit of American interests and preferences was righteous. History reminds us that the values and ideals of these civil rights icons were not in their own personal interests. Their lives invite us to reflect on whether it is best to pay the price of striving toward our values and ideals or to seek and defend those realities that, at times exclusively, serve our interests.
MONEY MAKES RIGHT
If our strong attachment to our interests goes unrecognized, the attachment will inevitably lead us to justify and validate evil when it assists us. In our modern world this attachment is evident in our attitude toward money. We place “In God We Trust” on our currency, and believers are horrified and enraged when people suggest that this saying should be removed. At the same time, many believers endorse an economic model which places its ultimate trust in money, profit, and the market. The only idol that Jesus explicitly mentioned was “mammon” (money or wealth). Money is literally a symbol of our ability to control our world and ensure our preferences. Money means power, security (gates, guards, and a good retirement), healthcare, ability to impose our interests through the legal system, ability to ensure our desires are considered politically (through campaign financing, through ownership of media and news, and in trade policies), and an ability to shape the perspectives within religious institutions. Many religious institutions are led, or at least advised, by boards that are mostly comprised of wealthy individuals. The real problem in our society is not that we want to take “In God We Trust” off our money but that even among the religious our real faith is in money.
It might be more accurate to describe our political establishment as a 'mammocracy' or 'moneyarchy' rather than as a democracy or a government of the people. First, the majority of our politicians are upper class. Second, their campaigns are dependent on contributions from the wealthy, so their policies must appeal to the financial inclinations of the wealthy. Third, many politicians return to enormous salaries in the private sphere after they retire, so it is desirable for politicians to remain in the good graces of the wealthy and powerful. A recent study conducted by a Princeton and Northwestern scholar entitled “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens” demonstrated that beginning in the early 1980s government policies have disproportionately favored the preferences of the top 10% of Americans over the average American.
This study is not cited to demonize the politicians or their prosperous supporters, but to show that money drives decision making in our country. The powerful of our world use wealth to garner popular support for their preferences and procure favorable policies; instead, they should trust discerning voters to elect devoted searchers who will explore varying options and find the policies that best serve all of those in our global community. If our political establishment is geared toward a select group’s preferred answers, it inevitably will incorporate manipulation of the political process. In place of debates that invite the audience to decide between multiple reasonable approaches to governance, we will have demonizing and fear-mongering. Appealing to fear, anger, resentment, and hate manipulates us by arousing our self-centeredness. Hitler’s rise to power capitalized on fears and resentments toward Jews and Communists. Once we are turned inward toward our interests and our fears and hostilities are triggered, we enter into a mental survival mode (fight or flight) and no longer look thoughtfully out at our world. In this state we are not truly free to make our own decisions based on our values and ideals; our positions are determined by those who trigger and direct our fears and angers. Only a mature society that is cognizant of the human tendency toward self-centeredness, values free thinking, is committed to constant searching, and is aware of its own insecurities can limit the danger of manipulation and consistently apply its ideals.
If we are fully committed to our ideals, how is it that believers from various religious and ethical traditions that endorse the call to treat others as they would want to be treated are indifferent to sweatshops, land grabs, and climate change? When one observes the abuses involved in sweatshops, the rights that are violated through land grabs, and the impact that the clear majority of scientists project climate change and habitat destruction will have on future generations, it is apparent that our stances are not based on ethical or rational consideration. None of us would want to have our ancestral land expropriated to increase corporate or state profits, to face degrading working conditions that at best allow us to survive, or to inherit a world whose environment is imperiled. People, including myself, benefit financially from the system that causes these unjust realities. As we have seen we tend to assume that what benefits us is right. Short-term financial considerations often supersede the economic, physical, spiritual, and psychological benefits for present and future generations to provide respectfully for themselves and experience the beautiful realities of billions of years of evolution.
Some of the above realities are currently controversial, so I would like to point to a few, less politically charged, historical examples of lives being sacrificed to protect profits. In the 20th century the cigarette and lead industries followed the religious belief that “money makes right.” Profit demanded that the scientific findings be undermined. I don’t know whether my grandfather, who died from lung cancer, began smoking after this cover-up began, but certainly this profit-protecting cover-up cost countless human lives. A CDC study found that between 2000 and 2004, long after the industry was forced to acknowledge the toxic nature of its product, cigarettes still killed 430,000 Americans a year. The yearly mortality rate is larger than the total number of American service people who died during World War II. While lead paint is now illegal in the United States, the World Health Organization estimates that lead causes 143,000 deaths a year and “contributes to 600,00 new cases of children with intellectual disabilities each year.” How many lives were lost or irreversibly harmed because the lead and cigarette industry fought the truth to protect their ultimate commitment to money?
It seems highly likely that Exxon and other energy companies are following this same pattern in funding “scientific” studies that question climate change. Enormously wealthy energy companies have strong financial incentives to undermine the scientific consensus. Similarly, the sugar industry has fought regulation and education though there is increasing evidence that over-consumption of sugar is contributing to a serious and costly health crisis. Coca Cola recently funded a study that undermined the growing scientific consensus relating to the hazards of sugar. Should companies that have so much interest in a certain answer be trusted to sponsor scientific studies or influence public policy, especially when corporate interests may be incompatible with the well-being of the human community as a whole?
There are countless examples of self-interest, in the form of maximizing profits, over-riding our search for truth and defense of human well-being. When profit is placed first, regardless of our professed belief, we see that our real trust is in money (mammon), and our real orientation is our own interests. It is strange that so many Christians do not see a tension between Jesus’ observation that you cannot serve god and mammon and an economic faith that trusting “the market” will always serve humanity and lead to god’s will. A popular approach to Christianity called The Prosperity Gospel, which believes that wealth and power are proof of god’s approval and the result of living a good life, almost baptizes faith in the market. The logic of profit, whether treated as an unquestioned idol by energy companies, the lead industry, cigarette companies, the sugar industry, slavers, or ordinary believers, has required innumerable human sacrifices. Nations have gone to war against “evil regimes” that were responsible for far fewer deaths than have been caused by the unrelenting pursuit of profit. It is astonishing that so many people have been convinced that it is sacrilegious to question whether a primary orientation toward profit is ethical.
Science poses major problems for a purely capitalistic system because science is not oriented towards our short-term self-interest; it doesn’t serve our god. It starts with questions rather than with our preferred answers, and its ultimate aim is searching for truth. The market may have value, but it must know its limitations. It cannot determine the truth. This is why it is frightening that those who place inordinate faith in the market are increasingly funding political campaigns and educational initiatives. Their ideology is one that begins with an answer.
Writers like Sheldon Wolin and Chris Hedges have described our current political and economic phenomenon as “Inverted Totalitarianism.” Unlike previous totalitarian regimes where state interests, as defined by political leaders, were given a supreme, unquestionable authority, “Inverted Totalitarianism” treats economic interests, as understood by the corporate elite, as unquestionable realities. Rather than encouraging thoughtful consideration of different perspectives, people are trained to respond with fear, indignation, and even hatred to those who would question the narrowly-defined economic benefits of our system (while ignoring the immediate and long-range costs of policies relating to the environment, human rights, public health, or general well-being). Furthermore, modern society is characterized by a survival mode where most people, including politicians, live with a fear and insecurity that leaves no space for questioning the validity of these interests. Science, politics, and education should never begin with an answer but should involve a courageous commitment to search for what is right, wherever that search leads us.
One can evaluate an institution by asking “does it challenge people to think for themselves?” Religions can empower people to be more search-oriented, but they must be careful to resist the temptation to become unquestionable idols themselves. Churches and institutions in general, like the educational system, the media, economic systems, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party, must show more interest in empowering people to think and search, instead of telling them what to think. When we search, we are not operating as gods because we give up the power to predetermine the answers.
THEIR RIGHTS OR OUR INTERESTS
Individualism certainly has value in our world, but it must be balanced with the promotion of social well-being. The honoring of these two goods is what the Catholic Church describes as the “Common Good.” In Catholicism’s understanding either of these goods applied alone undermines both itself and the other. The failure of a complete commitment to impose social well-being without providing for individual freedom can be observed in the deficiency of socialist regimes. It is understandable that those like the Russian writer Ayn Rand, who experienced totalitarian socialist regimes, saw greater individual responsibility and freedom and less government intervention as the path to social well-being; however, it is important to remember that a corrective in one context is not necessarily a universally useful prescription. The prescription for someone who is underweight is not the same as the answer for someone struggling with obesity.
The assumption that everyone acting only according to their own interests will lead to human well-being, as posited in Rand’s ideal of a “rational economic man,” is naïve unless it acknowledges that individual freedom can only exist when social well-being is protected. A system that promotes only individual freedom will not lead people to fully respect others as equals. There are times when one’s apparent self-interest requires that someone else’s interests and even that person’s rights are undermined. The authentically rational person, which unbridled capitalism tends to reject, must understand and account for the distortion created by self-interest. Unfortunately, Rand’s popular libertarian theory, while perhaps useful in the case of the fully rational individual (if such a person exists), lends itself to a lazy justification of greed or rationalization by those who care more about their interests than the rights of others. When self-interest leads us to overlook the rights of others in favor of our limited interests, it can foster an instability, resentment, and hostility that ultimately will not serve us. An “every man for himself” world leaves people insecure, bitter, hopeless, and susceptible to violence.
In his book, "The Brothers", Steven Kinzer examines America’s covert involvement in overthrowing various democratically elected regimes during the 1950s and 1960s. His book demonstrates the damage caused by the pursuit of self-interest, specifically American and corporate economic interests. By asserting their countries’ independence and promoting their people’s preferences, the regimes threatened the developed world’s “freedom” to control the developing world. In Congo Patrice Lumumba argued that Africa’s wealth of resources should not just benefit foreign regimes, corporations, and local elites but should benefit its own people. In Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh nationalized the oil industry so that the profits would benefit all of the people of Iran. In Guatemala Jacobo Arbenz similarly nationalized the banana industry. These countries were emerging from a period of colonization where the welfare of their own country and its population was entirely secondary to the ambitions of foreign powers. We justified our interventions on the basis that these leaders had socialistic leanings and might even have been in line with the Soviet Union. While claims of Russian alignment are dubious, could one blame these countries for not aligning themselves with the “free world?” Developed countries in “the free world” had spent centuries exploiting the “Third world,” and some in the developed world wanted to ensure that their interests in these countries and their capacity to control these poor countries’ resources continued to be protected. Accusations of socialism might have been a necessary assumption in order to rationalize the aggressive interventions that promoted “first world” interests.
Regardless of the leanings of these leaders, the aftermath of the developed world getting its way over the people’s way, in terms of the leadership of their own countries, was devastating. We know well the current reality in Iran. Ironically, we have entered into wars, allegedly, to promote democracy in the Middle East at the cost of thousands of American lives in addition to the hundreds of thousands of civilians who died in the aftermath of those wars, when years before we helped topple a Middle Eastern democracy. In the Congo during the years after we were involved in deposing the people’s choice of a leader, we have witnessed our world’s most deadly war since World War II (2.5-5.4 million deaths – human beings, not numbers!). In Guatemala the more America-friendly military regime/dictatorship that replaced the democratically-elected regime of Arbenz was involved in a war that saw as many as 200,000 people die between 1960 and 1996. The Guatemalan government and military, with American funding and training, was involved in genocidal atrocities and torture during this period, including Rios Montt’s “Silent Holocaust” that saw as many as 75,000, mostly Mayan, peasants killed between 1982 and 1983.
In these African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American cases, our economic and political preferences did not serve the poor majority; still, we continue to assume that the rightness of our interests is a given. Our involvement in these countries, as well as Iraq (where we initially supported Sadam Hussein), Indonesia, Honduras, El Salvador, Egypt, Cuba, and Vietnam, and the effects of our interventions have never been the subject of serious public discussion. We also have never identified why it was our right to determine how people in other countries chose to run their own government and economy. Avoiding such conversations makes much more sense if, rather than operating as rational economic people, we act as “rationalizing economic people.” It’s more convenient to ignore these stories and the difficult questions that they pose.
Patterns of promoting profit for the wealthy at the expense of the well-being of those in poverty continue into the 21st century. Consider the story of Fr. Restrepo, a priest in Marmato, Colombia, who was recently murdered in the middle of a struggle for the land of a community of artisanal miners. The land, which was occupied by the community that he served, had been sold out from under the community to a Canadian corporation for environmentally-devastating, large-scale gold mining. The government planned to relocate the poor residents of the area. Days before his death Restrepo pledged to stay with the people, promising that he would only leave if the mining company killed him. While details of Restrepo’s murder remain shrouded in mystery, it’s important to recognize that violence against those who threaten the interests of wealthy and powerful entities (both foreign and domestic) is not uncommon in the developing world. In La Puya, Guatemala for the past couple years, the people have protested the mining intentions of an American corporation on the basis of the adverse environmental and health effects it will have in the community. This period of nonviolent protest climaxed with a violent crackdown on these protesters. In Honduras Berta Cáceres, who was a tireless advocate for indigenous and environmental justice, was murdered on March 3, 2016. Like so many in Honduras who have questioned their own government and the interests of trans-national corporations since Honduras’ 2009 coup, she willingly lived with danger. Her daughter, Bertha, explained her mother’s stance:
"The position taken not only by my mother, but also by the Lenca indigenous people and the Honduran social movement, is aimed at preserving the life of the communities and to preserve life, not only for ourselves but for the entire world. It’s very important to understand the difference between the worldview of the indigenous communities and an extractivist model that really means dispossession, pillage of the natural goods of nature, and, over time, the death of the communities and of their way of life. That is why my mother so fervently and so firmly opposed these projects, because they don’t bring about the supposed development that they talk about. They really represent death for the communities… the role of the coup is, well, the reason for the deaths of hundreds of activists and defenders of life, because at the root of the problem that the indigenous peoples are facing is… since the coup that hundreds of concessions were given for hydroelectric exploitation, for mining… and a number of projects aimed at dispossessing the population. So, we are actually experiencing the coup d’état now with the establishment of a whole series of projects that are strengthening an economic model that represents the pillage of the common goods of nature."
Describing the horror of life in Honduras after the 2009 coup and the support the United States gave to the post-coup regime, Greg Grandin, a history professor from NYU references a recent interview he conducted with Berta:
"Hundreds of peasant activists and indigenous activists have been killed. Scores of gay rights activists have been killed… It’s just a nightmare in Honduras… there’s ways in which the coup regime basically threw up Honduras to transnational pillage. And Berta Cáceres, in that interview, says what was installed after the coup was something like a permanent counterinsurgency on behalf of transnational capital."
While Colombian and Honduran militaries purportedly aid us in fighting the drug war, do we consider whether our support of these forces and promotion of corporate bottom lines benefit the ordinary people in those societies, especially when their basic rights often haven’t been respected by their own governments? Though the Colombian government has increasingly embraced the free market system and trusted that foreign investment will lead to progress, it remains one of the most unequal nations in the world and is home to one of the largest populations of internally displaced people on Earth. One wonders whose welfare the governments and security forces serve in the peasant communities where so much wealth can be acquired. Perhaps the government and military leaders are simply “rational economic men” who realize that if they promote the desires of foreign powers and the small elite in their own country rather than serve the peasant majority, they will gain both the wealth and military support necessary to maintain the self-serving wealth and power disparity.
Some argue that it is unjust to limit corporation’s freedom to pursue their interests, but we rarely allow our thinking to be complicated by the challenging question of why their rights and interests are deemed more important than the interests and rights of the poor masses in these countries as well as the future generations of our world. Why haven’t we heard about and wrestled with the challenging questions presented by Marmato, Honduras, and La Puya? Why aren’t we aware of issues of water resource allocation in the developing world? Are people cognizant of how large corporations have privatized and monopolized water rights in parts of the developing and developed world? In Bolivia this led to a 300% rise in the cost of water, water cut-offs to those who could no longer afford it, and policies that made it illegal even to collect rainwater without a permit. Do people in the developed world care about privatization’s effects on the rights of the poor? The answer seems to be “no” as long as they are able to purchase their products affordably and see their stock prices steadily increase.
These stories are largely ignored by our society because they do not fit our assumptions or the mythology that serves the god of our self-interest. Ignoring this allows us to continue the belief in our exclusively heroic cultural narrative. It also prevents us from recognizing that the pursuit of maximized profits does not always serve the rest of the world or even portions of our own population. The unregulated market, in its pure form, makes the promotion of human rights optional. Practically, only those with power and wealth can require that their rights are respected.
One could argue that the laws of the countries and the corruption of the leaders is the real problem in poorer countries; however, we must admit the possibility that the market might prefer corrupt leaders who are easier to manipulate. Dependence fostered by the developed world over centuries in the developing world created a condition where it is sometimes personally beneficial and necessary for the leadership of these countries to promote foreign interests over the interests of their own people. This was especially true in oppressive dictatorships whose minority status was only tenable with the military aid of a wealthy and powerful developed nation. Suffice to say that military aid was not given freely but was accompanied by various economic, commercial, political, and military commitments on the part of the developing nation. In some cases the costs of these arrangements to the ordinary people, in terms of lost human lives, decreased economic independence, undermined democratic prospects, and diminished hopes for a better future, are incalculable.
WAITING ON THE WORLD TO CHANGE
I suspect most economists would agree that all corruption is unfortunate, but libertarian economists would still contend that our interests and system are in the long term interests of the poor majority. While I am skeptical of this argument, I wonder how long these economists expect people to wait for the system to work its magic. In a prison in Birmingham, Martin Luther King, Jr. lamented the call for patience in the African American community from white religious leaders:
"I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was 'well-timed' according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “wait.” It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This wait has almost always meant never… I guess it’s easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say 'wait.'"
Neither I, nor those who are arguing that we should wait for conditions in impoverished areas to “naturally” improve as their economies become “freer” have ever experienced the sting of starvation felt by the nearly one billion people who will go to bed hungry tonight. We have not had the experience of the indigenous communities who are dispossessed of their lands in Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, or the Philippines in the name of a “freer” world community. How long will they have to wait for this development to benefit them? We have not experienced the liberation (or is it demoralization) that results when a developed nation initiates a coup to remove our democratically elected leader who is more committed to addressing our concerns than the concerns of foreign powers. Can we honestly say we know what it is like to be one of the three billion people who live on less than $2.50 a day?
Like the millions of peasant farmers in Mexico who lost their ability to provide for themselves after NAFTA, the indigenous people in Marmato and La Puya were capable of providing for themselves before their economy was freed. Is it ethical to expect them to wait, perhaps generations, for the system to provide them with the type of work that previously allowed them some degree of dignity and independence and gave them the ability to provide for their families?
Even in our society it is not a given that trusting our economic system solved all of our problems. Coal workers did not wait for the market to improve their wages; they struggled for fair pay. Wages for factory workers didn’t just increase when the middle class grew after the Second World War; large numbers of workers were a part of unions that gave laborers the leverage and support to demand and achieve a fair wage, and the government increasingly required that workers’ rights were respected. The economy didn’t just decide it no longer wanted to exploit child labor; it was told this would no longer be accepted. The market didn’t just decide it no longer should lie to people about hazards of tobacco and lead; it was forced to tell the truth. In fact these improvements were primarily implemented in places where people had the political power to demand them.
Offending industries may show a public face of sorrow for the lives that have been sacrificed to the god of profit, but the lack of authentic remorse in these industries is evidenced by their use of similar tactics at the service of profit elsewhere. Union workers around the world have continued to be met with harassment, intimidation, and murder. Hazards of tobacco and lead have continued to be downplayed, and fair wages continue to be denied, just not as flagrantly or publicly here as in countries where the “rights” of powerful foreign and domestic economic entities are placed above human rights. Basic environmental protections (which also protect people’s freedom to drink clean water and breathe clean air) were not willingly adopted by polluting industries; they were imposed. In many cases these industries have just found places that lack environmental accountability or worked politically to undermine local regulations that protect the Earth and its inhabitants. As Catholic leaders have said, we don’t necessarily need to eliminate our system, but we need to bridle capitalism. Regulation should not be viewed as a bad word. While over-regulation can become a problem, under-regulation leaves the poor and vulnerable with nothing to protect their rights. Rational citizens need to recognize when the economy is not serving the interests of the whole world and adjust it so that the system is serving everyone. If we turn our economic ideal into an unquestionable reality, it becomes vulnerable to manipulation and becomes an idol in the mold of a state theology. The South African "Kairos Document" observed the relationship between a self-serving state theology and our economic system, recognizing that both are at times used to make a self-serving status quo unquestionable: “(State theology) is simply the theological justification of the status quo with its racism, capitalism and totalitarianism.”
While one can point to some improvements in developing nations, how many people must starve, how many species must be lost, how many generations have to barely survive before the system will change things? How large does the scope of human suffering need to be for us to decide that a prescription to wait is inadequate? Furthermore, would we be satisfied with the prescription of waiting if we were working in a sweatshop for survival wages with little hope of long term improvement or if one of the millions of children who will die of hunger-related causes this year was our own child? James Grant, a former director of UNICEF, acknowledged that “the problem is not that we have tried to eradicate global poverty and failed; the problem is that no serious and concerted attempt has ever been made.”
Perhaps, if we continue on our current path, libertarian economists will be proved right and our trust in the market will be vindicated with some degree of improvement. In a century we might only have one million children dying of hunger-related causes each year. With the extreme wealth in our world, is it necessary to accept those deaths as the price of progress? Is a system that accepts those deaths when the re-sources exist to make a significant and immediate impact truly a humane one? Is the ideology we put our faith in a cure for those who suffer in the world, or is it a means of easing our conscience as we concentrate on accumulating more wealth while effectively ignoring our brothers and sisters’ continued suffering?
In his reflection, "Jesus’ Plan for a New World", Richard Rohr distinguishes between the true sacred, which is other-serving and self-sacrificing, and the false sacred (idolatry), which “is always self-serving and other-destroying.” Both the false sacred and selfishness are willing to accept someone else’s sacrifice. On a wide level we are putting our faith in self-interest and risking operating as though we are god. If we choose this, we at least should have the courage and honesty to acknowledge those “others” who are sacrificed in the quest for our own maximized profits. Instead, we tell them to wait and promote faith in our system to avoid difficult questions.
Certainly, our history is filled with great nobility and heroism. We rightly recall and celebrate the proud moments in our history, but our thinking must be complicated by fully acknowledging the dark side of our history and our system. Not only should we know the names and stories of our heroes, but we should also be able to recite a list of every dictator and genocidal regime we have supported and be steeped in the stories of our own genocidal tradition in relation to African and Native Americans. Our lack of repentance for dispossession of Native American lands is reflected by the fact that a large number of those who are victims of the modern-day land grabs aimed at supplementing already enormous corporate profits are indigenous peoples. A society well-aware of its checkered past is more likely to produce thoughtful seekers who do not begin with idolatrous assumptions of their nation, economic system, or party’s intrinsic rightness. Such honesty would teach humility. Humility is not shame; it is acceptance of the reality of our humanity. Our humanity means we possess both exceptional possibilities and inevitable limitations.
It’s OK that we as individuals are not perfect. It’s sadly normal that our nation’s history is checkered. It’s OK that our system isn’t perfect. We are a nation of humans. Ego resists the acknowledgment of our own imperfection. It is great to love our nation, but important to remember that love is a matter of truth and reality. Loving a person or a community is not a matter of pretending that the beloved has no flaws, it involves valuing them in spite of their flaws and walking with them as all those involved try to become their best selves. We dismiss youthful love that idealizes and idolizes the beloved as infatuation. Similarly, we must be suspicious of an idolatrous infatuation with our economic system and country that prevents honest questioning and allows us to overlook our own harmful impulses. As long as we are aware of our personal, systemic, and societal limitations, we will recognize the continued need for growth. We will also become less susceptible to accepting unjust realities and less interested in imposing our limited perspective on others.