"Construing our relationship to the world as one of 'consumption' is to take a good, creational reality of dependence and the need for acquisition in a direction that runs against the grain of God's universe. In sum, consumption i...s a way of relating to the resources of the world that runs counter to shalom."--James K. A. Smith
Professor Hatcher: Absolutely. What is the opposite of shalom? That's what we have.
Doctor Collins: So, what does this say about capitalism?
Hatcher: Is capitalism the opposite of shalom? I don't see the hand of God in capitalism.
Collins: It seems to me that capitalism is based on consumption, so whatever Smith says about consumption, I think should apply to capitalism, too. I agree with you Elaine. Whether capitalism is the opposite of shalom or not, it leads in that opposite direction.
Mitchell: Capitalism is such a big, magic word, that can be scary for some and miracle-working for others. I think there is much positive to be said about free markets, the production of goods, and the creativity that goes into investing capital. However, I'm fully in agreement that in the extreme consumerist version we live in, it's hard not to kiss the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.
Hatcher: I can't even imagine how a godly, Christ-like capitalist system would operate.
Mitchell: However, I certainly don't think socialist systems have proved themselves capable of producing long-term prosperity for a people. They tend to devolve into either utopian projects and/or totalitarian collectives. What capitalism offers at its best is the ability to people to use their creativity and drive in work and production of goods. Is radical consumption the natural end of all capitalism or only the kind we've developed in the West?
Hatcher: I certainly don't consider socialist systems a viable solution! The end result is much worse than our "radical consumerism." Due to the fallen nature of humankind, radical consumption is probably the natural end of all capitalism. We just can't seem to do anything right on a large scale although individuals might practice a godly form of ... Read more capitalism on a local scale. But I don't know of any society where either capitalism or socialism has ended well for all. I say back to the land! Maybe manorialism with benevolent landlords?
Thanks for posting an interesting discussion here!
ReplyDeleteAnyone desiring an agrarian lifestyle for themselves is free to choose it, that's fair, right? Is there anything preventing one from regressing at any moment whatsoever to an agrarian lifestyle?
I like your description of 'capitalism at its best'. I agree completely that capitalism harnesses people's creativity and results in unparalleled production. However, I would not stop there, but take another leap and say that such advanced production enhances the ability of people to enjoy a much broader range of choices about how to spend any part of their lives; and this broader range of choices allows them to devote their lives more completely to whichever worthy goal they set for their lives. So the end product of capitalism is not consumerism but a broader range of choices that an individual enjoys.
Since in any society anyone can regress to agrarian living (as W Berry has done, at least in part), then what counts in this society is- leaving intact the freedom of others to choose the lifestyle they value, even if such lifestyle of radical consumerism (if one wants to use that language) is deemed somehow inferior to other lifestyles by some.
Well, we're mostly in agreement here, though I would challenge your statement that someone is simply "free" to choose the agrarian life. Such a life is not simple a matter of choosing between two equally opportune possibilities. Current agro-business and world markets often make such a life rather difficult to adopt The agrarian also has to be educated and incultured into such a life. Then, there's the problem that agrarian communities don't just exist on every corner! The reality is that the current system works against such a life.
ReplyDeleteSomething similar can be said of extreme consumerism. Once you participate in the current system (which I do) you are bombarded by advertising constantly, exist within a social system that prizes consumption as identity choice, therapy, and even patriotism. You can choose to resist it, but that is not an easy or often a "free" choice. Most of us don't have the will or can see a way to resist except in token ways. (I wonder what Cavanuagh will say?)
I think what you are challenging is not that a person is "free" to choose the agrarian life, which they can always do, but rather - that they can choose it and still maintain a certain standard of living socially, materially, or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThat people can go to an agrarian lifestyle is indisputable, there is nothing easier (didn't W Berry try it?). I can get up right now, at 10:48 am, quit my work, sell my house, buy some land, and start working it. Nothing to prevent me. But of course - you are right to imply that by making that choice I would have to suffer consequences: without proper training I may not grow enough for sustenance; without agrarian communities around me I may be socially isolated, etc. So - yes - the choices are certainly not equal in regard to the consequences, but I still maintain that we are 'free' to make those choices if we want, and I think that is just great!
To call for making these choices equal in their consequences would mean to call for limiting of the freedom of others - of agribusiness to pursue their profits the way they know how, of consumers who chose to support the capitalist lifestyle by buying the cheapest goods, of the non-agrarian suburbanites to continue spreading the suburbs over God's creation.
It occurs to me that we're back to (without my meaning to, I assure you!) the discussion about the nature of freedom-negative and positive. In this case the positive freedom of one kind of consumption severely restricts the positive freedom of another kind of life. Call me a cynic, but I think the average consumption- addict isn't able to choose another life, hardly to even conceptualize it. This does not mean I think we solve this thorough massive state intervention, btw.
ReplyDeleteHehe - you are right - we are back to that discussion, and it finds us in the same worn trenches that we occupied before, hehe!
ReplyDeleteI still reject outright such a thing as a positive freedom because in my view it cannot but interfere (stomp out) the more important negative freedom.
But what about W Berry? What do you think about that point - as a point that illustrates that - yes - one can very well freely choose an agrarian lifestyle at any point.