In my previous post I began to argue that an economic system is not inherently good or evil. Like other things (wine, automobiles, guns, computer games), systems can be used in ways the produce very good consequences and truly awful ones. It’s a point I want to emphasize because most people I know outside of academic circles think that Marxism and even socialism are inherently evil, and most people I know within academic circles think that capitalism is. (Damn intellectuals…)
Here I’m focusing on capitalism since, well, like it or not,
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I would make sure that we’re first teasing out a system (capitalist, socialist) and who owns the means of production either personally (capitalism) or the state (Marxism).
Second, is one more globally efficient than the other: Is it capitalism with social contract (government) restraint regarding pollution, the essentials of life, protection of the vulnerable with no allegiance to anyone but oneself or associations chosen by oneself or is it Marxism with allegiance to the collective well-being as defined by leaders of a particular group who are in charge and own the means of production.
Overall, I find Tolstoy’s 1886 Short Story, “How much land does one man need” informative in this area. Pahom’s desire to pursue self interest (capitalism) ultimately fails without the guard rails of our social contract (tragedy of the commons) to work in the interest of the community.
Fascinating thread and I’m sure that bodes well for your book too. I guess, even though Jesus didn’t directly talk about, say, nuclear weapons, commentators can still extrapolate from what he did say his likely opinion on the matter. Which I imagine is what you will be doing. As an aside, I think, ironically, people can be healthier in times of deprivation, all things being equal. As long as you are not starving, a lack of access to luxury foodstuffs can be a health benefit.
Capitalism relies on the fatal fallacy of perpetual growth on a finite planet. Markets inevitably create extreme inequality unless actively counterbalanced.
Jesus saw the unsustainablity and instability of the economic system of his day and encouraged radical equality, generosity, and inclusion. While he expressed himself in the idioms of his time and place, we’re facing imminent collapse today on a truly global scale. His message is more relevant than ever.
The term capitalism has been abused so much I just ignore it. I use the following framework when discussing the economy in general:
> Free markets (competition, and the discipline of profit and loss)
> Secure property rights
> Rule of law
Bart, I am not yet persuaded by your fundamental claim that an economic system is not inherently good or bad, and that the problem lies with the people operating within it.
Your comparisons with wine, cars, guns, and computer games seem to describe an economic system too thinly. Such objects do not themselves distribute ownership and decision-making power, reward certain forms of conduct, or shape who acquires economic influence. An economic system does. Why should those structural features not themselves be open to moral evaluation?
This seems especially relevant to Jesus. His warnings about wealth concern not only bad conduct by rich individuals, but also what possessing wealth can do to them: they may hold onto it, trust in it, seek more of it, and resist giving it up. If so, a system that rewards accumulation and allows accumulated wealth to confer greater economic and political power may not be a neutral setting in which people simply choose to behave well or badly. It may place people predictably in precisely the position against which Jesus warns.
I realise that you are still developing the argument, and I wish you every success with the book.
I certainly think some economic systems are inherently bad, on moral grounds. Rome worked with a slave-economy, and I consider that flawed at the premise. I don’t think either capitalism or socialism is flawed systemically, depending on what one’s moral values are. If one value is to have a system that can improve the welfare of the populace, then it’s quite easy to maintain that capitalism as a whole is morally a much better system than say, the agrarian economy of Galilee in Jesus’ day, where the vast majority of people lived at the subsistence level or in pure destitution. We too have far, far too much of that, and for us there is no excuse, since there is plenty of money and food to prevent it. But the reason there is plenty of money and food is because of industrializtion and the economic systems that both fueled and emerged out of it. Do you disagree with that? (I’m not dogmatic about it; it’s simply the way I see it)
No, I do not disagree that industrialisation and the economic development associated with it have produced an abundance that agrarian Galilee could not. That is a genuine human benefit.
But I am not sure that this answers my structural question. You rightly observe that we now have enough money and food to prevent destitution, yet still fail to do so. That suggests that productive capacity and the distribution of its benefits are distinct questions. A system may generate abundance while its rules of ownership and power help determine who receives it.
Your example of the Roman slave economy also seems important. It establishes that economic arrangements can be morally flawed at the level of their premises, rather than only through the conduct of individuals within them.
So if improving the welfare of the populace is one moral value by which we assess an economic system, should we not also assess capitalism by other moral values, including how it distributes ownership, vulnerability and economic power?
I agree that this does not by itself make capitalism inherently wrong. But doesn’t it mean that its structures, and not only its capitalists, remain proper objects of moral judgment?
I’d be interested in learning if any system (obvioulsy not capitalism) has “rules of distribution” that actually work and provide widewspread benefits without creating other problems. I assume you’re thinking of some kind of democratic socialism (not what our current socialist democrats are calling themselves, but actual socialism with some kinds of democratic features). I’m not sure that a *system* has the inherent ability to create that kinds of justice and equality that (my) morality would like to see, without creating other problems. There are, of course, famous examples within living memory of systems theoretically designed to spread the wealth that ended up being unmitigated disasters. If every system fails, then changing systems is probably not the answer — though “reforming” them may be. Just my current thoughts…
Bart, this made me look again at the title of the post: ‘The Moral Benefits of Capitalism’. If capitalism can be credited with moral benefits, then its institutional features can also be examined for moral costs. That does not make capitalism inherently immoral, but it means the analysis cannot stop with the character of individual capitalists.
And I think your point about democratic socialism is right: an alternative may solve one problem while creating another.
Concentrated private capital can become political power, allowing wealth to influence the rules meant to restrain it. That raises a question for reform: can the institutions doing the reform remain independent of the economic power they are supposed to constrain?
But shifting much more economic power into public or collective control carries its own danger: political power may then gain greater economic power and weaken independent counterpowers.
So democratic socialism is not simply my answer either. The deeper issue seems to be the architecture of power.
What institutional safeguards can actually prevent concentrated power, private or public, from capturing the mechanisms designed to restrain it, especially when those being constrained have strong incentives to weaken those safeguards?
Yes, my personal view is that the problem is not they system per se but the way it is manipulated in ways that bring terrible harm. That would mean a call for reform, not replacement.
Love this discussion and the topic you’re exploring. I’m chiming in late and hoping I didn’t miss an important detail, but Bart, when you’re talking about democratic socialism and then how the term is being used now, but also that you’re not sure such a model exists–are we not counting Sweden, Norway, and maybe Denmark that way? To me, those seem like fairly successful versions of what some of us hope for in a moral model for government.
Or are we talking about a society that does even more than that? Eliminates all private enterprise and inequality? (I’m not against it!) I’ve been a democratic socialist since I first heard and understood the term in the 1980’s. Sorry if I’m misunderstanding that part.
I can see the economic and social benefits of capitalism and economic growth. I love having the world at my fingertips because engineers perfected portable phones and competed with each other! Also, as a gay boomer, I feel like capitalism helped sell America on same-sex marriage. Think of the market for weddings and travel! But I would like to see a society where most people get their needs met.
Oh, sorry if I was unclear. I’m definitely not saying the democratic socialism does not exist today. I was saying that American politicians who call themselves democratic socialism are not that but are social democrats.
Bart, I accept Friedman’s empirical observation that people often behave more generously and tolerantly when they expect their circumstances to improve. But I am less certain what moral conclusion follows from it.
His contrast seems asymmetrical. Stagnation and insecurity may make those who have little fearful and hostile. But concentrated wealth may also make those who possess it fearful and hostile when they seek to protect or expand it. That fear may express itself in resistance to redistribution, labour organisation, regulation, or other perceived threats to their position. Growth might therefore reduce insecurity for some while accumulation produces a different, defensive insecurity in others.
More importantly, better conduct under favourable conditions is not necessarily moral improvement. If people become less tolerant when growth stops or their position appears threatened, perhaps growth has moderated their behaviour rather than transformed them morally.
Would it therefore be more precise to say that broadly shared growth encourages better behaviour while favourable conditions last, rather than that it produces lasting moral progress? That would preserve what seems valuable in Friedman’s empirical observation without yet turning it into a moral defence of capitalism.
Yes, his point is that it is not the “wealth of nations” per se but economic growth (which by definition is constant, or else it’s no longer growth) that produces the effect.
Thank you. I understand that Friedman’s argument concerns continuing growth rather than accumulated wealth. Perhaps the deeper question is what kind of “moral progress” is meant. He may be describing changes in public attitudes, policies and institutions under conditions of broadly shared growth, rather than a lasting transformation of individual moral character. Those could still be genuine moral gains, even if they remain vulnerable when growth stops.
Does Friedman distinguish between moral progress in a society and moral formation of persons? That distinction may be especially important when relating his argument to Jesus, whose teaching concerns not only social outcomes but also what wealth, insecurity and generosity do to people.
The moral values include such things as what he considers Enlightehment social val8se sues as openness of opportunity, tolerance, economic and social mobility,, fairness and democracy; He argues that growing economies demonstrably make people happier, more satisfied, less rebellious, less antagonistic toward the “other,” more open to diversity, less opposed to immigration, and generally more altruistic. And he seems to make a compelling case. It certainly makes sense to me, when I see those all around who have no chance of improving their lives or those of their children who are resentful, hateful, opposed to those not like them, insular, etc….
Bart, am I reading Friedman correctly that he uses “the moral character of a society” broadly enough to include both personal attitudes and behavior and features of society, such as opportunities and democratic institutions?
If so, I still think there is an important distinction within that category. People may become more tolerant, generous, or open when their economic prospects improve. But that is not quite the same as moral formation that remains when circumstances get worse. Friedman’s point that these attitudes can reverse when people no longer feel they are getting ahead seems relevant here.
There is another point I am wondering about. Friedman’s argument is about broadly shared economic growth, rather than capitalism as such. If I understand him correctly, he is showing that broadly experienced improvement tends to have morally beneficial consequences.
But to make that a moral benefit of capitalism, wouldn’t we still need to show that capitalism is particularly good at producing this kind of broadly shared growth compared with realistic alternatives?
Would it therefore be more precise to say that capitalism deserves moral credit insofar as it produces broadly shared growth, rather than to attribute Friedman’s moral benefits to capitalism as such?
Yes, I think you’re understanding him correctly. He also thinks though that capitalism is uniquely capable of generating economic growth, and it is that growth that provides hope for individuals and collective moral benefits.
I lived in a Marxist country (National-Communist, to be precise). So, I know that state Marxism produces lack of freedom (as in bourgeois freedoms). But so does theocracy. The Netherlands barely escaped a regime of Calvinist Shariah. And, I guess, Jesus’s kingdom was a theocracy. Or, in any case, an absolute monarchy.
Was Socialism part of it? The Old Testament can be construed as leftist totalitarianism. Closer to Maoism than to Nazism. A welfare state, as in the EU, is based on the teachings of Old Testament prophets.
Why didn’t Jesus at least comment on the institution of slavery in the context of salvation? If you concerned about salvation, this assumes you have some robust conception of self – i.e. you are not an army ant destined for a mass burial trash heap. If Jesus accepts we have individual self-interest, why doesn’t he delve into why people of his day don’t own the fruits of their labor – institutional enslavement or injustice. Whether by class, by debt, by colonial extortion / forced extraction, or by conquest in war, you would think Jesus could have addressed some such basic dilemmas of his day, whatever prevented people from attaining basic necessities. Instead he spoke of giving up the basics, to spread a MORE important message. If your basic needs are not met, how can you stand up? It seems if any such person named Jesus got into a position we imagine he did, how could he get there without addressing systemic issues. In my estimate he most likely DID, which was one means of how he gained a strong cult following, but that message had either been whitewashed or lost to history
It’s a striking phenomenon that no one addressed the moral problem of slavery in antiquity. It was SO muchj a part of their world, no one appears to have realized there was an option. It’s like the story told by David Foster Wallace in his commencement address at Kenyon years ago:
“There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’ And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes ‘What the hell is water?'”
Wow. You have a very negative view of our economy and by inference our lives. Lots of us don’t see it that way.
I do? I was talking about the *benefits* of capitalism. I certainly have a negative view of wealth that is not used to help those in need. But that’s not necessarily systemic (which was my point).
Many European countries have a much higher standard of living than we do in the US. They have a shorter workweek, more vacation (both create more jobs), sane maternity and parental leave, universal healthcare, and higher education. Everyone seems to have a better sense of security and well-being.
What is the difference if people pay for these things out of pocket or through taxes?
The difference appears to be that the countries that pay for those things out of taxes are the ones that have the higher standard of living. But the Scandinavian contries are small both geographically and in terms of populatoin size, and it seems unlike that the, say, Norwegian model would work here. The Norwegians are taxed to the hilt, but everyone I’ve met (a number!) are quite happy about it.
They have a higher standard of living and more security, both for themselves and their posterity. Some people think they can save up enough money and opportunity for their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It’s just not possible. The only way to do it is to build a fair and stable society.
Europe is made up of smaller countries, but a great deal of Europe is doing things this way. So is Canada. The US is leaving itself behind in more ways than one. I really don’t see why a lot of these European/Canadian ideas couldn’t work here.
The main difference is (obviously) that in a system where such things are paid for by taxes, no-one has to go without those benefits because they personally do not have much money. The health care is available to everyone, no matter what their financial situation; the maternity leave is paid leave, not unpaid; etc.
By contrast, in a system where such things are paid for out of pocket, if you don’t have $50,000 or $75,000 to pay for your necessary surgery, then you simply don’t get the surgery. If you don’t have enough savings to support yourself during your unpaid maternity leave, then you can’t take the leave. And so on.
I keep thinking that the insecurity and the anxiety that all this causes really adds up as well. It takes its toll on the body, and it really diminishes people’s quality of life. Rather than motivating people, it depletes and exhausts them.
Perhaps we need to think of other ways of motivating people besides money. Some people say that giving out more awards and recognition is a good way of doing this.
Off topic but recently I obtained a copy of Henry Chadwick’s History of the Early Church. Then I saw that it was published in 1967. Is there a more recent book on early church history you can recommend?
There really wasn’t anything like it/better until this past year. See Paula Fredriksen, Ancient Christianities.
There’s a lot of anti-wealth “stuff” going on in the Gospels, which only makes sense to me if Jesus and early Christians thought the end was at hand, as they say. Given that didn’t happen, I think a system that creates wealth, that is open to all (at least in theory), and that creates a social safety net (sharing and caring) can be justified by certain Scriptural principles, not that it needs to be. Obviously, some of the anti-wealth stuff is justified in the context of greed, envy, loss of perspective etc.
Looking forward to your book. Just finished Lost Christianities and How Jesus Became God. Working through your NT Introduction now. Thank you for sharing with us. Best wishes.
Having lived in the United States and the UK, I do not think the quality of medical care in Japan is particularly low by comparison. Yet patients’ costs can be quite modest because of near-universal health insurance. I recently paid about $30 for an upper endoscopy, $100 for a brain MRI, and roughly $350 for five dental visits.
This seems relevant to your point because Japan is a capitalist economy, but one in which capitalism has long coexisted with substantial government intervention and social redistribution. Japan is also highly secular. Although Buddhism has profoundly influenced Japanese culture historically, explicit religious belief plays a relatively small role in the everyday lives of many Japanese today. Postwar Japan has also generally had comparatively modest levels of income inequality.
I am not trying to boast about Japan. The country has many social problems, and many question whether this system can survive an aging population. Still, as a Christian, I find it interesting that some moral outcomes we associate with Christian ethics may arise not only from religious belief, but also from economic institutions, political choices, and particular historical circumstances.
Absolutely! (In Love The Stranger I talked about the advantages that came to society in the west through Christian ethics as manifest in the invention of social institutions — but I tried to be very clear I was talking just about the west. In India, China, Japan, etc. there were other forces at work)
On the one hand, we have Jesus saying, “Don’t worry about what you shall eat or wear”.
On the other hand, we have Paul saying, “the person who doesn’t work doesn’t eat.”
There’s a balance here.
Since the dawn of time, people have had to get up and do something to have food, shelter, clothing, etc. No incentive to get up and do something doesn’t seem to be such a good idea.
The thing is, some kind of work has to be available and doable.
There’s also the question of how much do people have to work, for how little, and for how long?
There’s a statement in the Jewish Talmud where God asks, “Are you or have you been fair in your transactions?” Isn’t there something to be said for this perspective?
Today we live in a world where the tiny Netherlands (a country with a real winter), is the 2nd largest exporter of food after the US. (Look it up, this is a true statement).
It seems to me that we could be doing better in creating a fair and humane world.
We can see both the good and bad the concepts of capitalism in nature — plants, animals and insects. Balances and imbalances that shift over time and the winners eventually become the losers. The cycle continues.
Maybe Jesus was very cognizant of the nature of politics, saw the imbalances and recognized that a big swing was certainly imminent in Jerusalem. His prepared his disciples for this time and his disciples, being on the very short end of the wealth and power spectrum, were ready to tough it out to be on the ‘winning’ side of this new rebalancing and were, in effect, cornering the market in expected spiritual assets (the futures market!) to gain a huge benefit (profit) in their time.
People can use Christian principles in economic systems. Like technologies, design is to maximize some factor but that creates other issues to fix. Economic systems are not inherently ‘evil’ but need a level of empathy and approachs to address problems and those left out.
It is more about the people that are in power and how things are run to address the problems. There are plenty of examples of the different systems, many moving towards more hybrid approaches instead of being pure one thing or another. China for example is still ruled by communist party, has a lot of capitalist activities although within government policy and veto. There are many rich people in china but many very poor (and exploited workers?)! Many U.S. programs are not pure capitalism, and has a lot of regulation although it varies with who is in power. Nicaragua is heavily Christian, claims to be ‘revolutionary socialist’ yet is very poor and recently declared they were not going to have elections this year because ‘the opposition might win’, even though elections there don’t appear fair already.
Christian principles can still be exercised within different economic models. But the power structure has to allow it.
What’s in a name.
China Communist Party- is the ruling party, Communism or Maoism, low Gini index was abandoned after Mao’s death or China would be a lowest growing nation
International Relations Professor: Japan’s ruling party then LDP is neither Liberal or Democratic!
USA has been far more socialist in practice than freer market China. USA controls its markets with laws & taxation & cultural norms. Its just redefinition.
Based upon your recent book and posts, I am sure you will get into some basic economic principles. The famous political joke, “they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work,” captures a fundamental flaw of the communist economic system. I have spent my professional career around academic public health. The history of public health points how worker and public health grew out of efforts to maintain a healthier more productive workforce on the Industrial Revolution. Basic economic principles discuss why our common social values (i.e., Judeo Christian morality????) support restrains on unregulated self-interests that produce “market failures” —when such unregulated self-interests lead to bad outcomes for our society as a whole. History has produced many examples how capitalistic syst
Comment got posted incomplete. Friedman;s book documents how capitalistic systems regulated to protect our accepted common goods lead to a more productive workforce. There are multiple examples of Marxist economy with poor productivity and many “market failures.” Our accepted social values can produce the context for changes in our somewhat out-of-control capitalistic economy. Thus the importance of your efforts to emphasize the religious foundations of such social values. For the record, I am a firm believer that from Adam Smith time forward good economic principles define how a regulated capitalistic system is superior to a communistic system. But translating our common social values into public policies to maintain such a regulated economy — ah that is the crucial element!!!! I am sure you have some opinions about that!!!!!
Hello Bart, I’ve read all your wonderful books. Can you please recommend another book about The Historical Jesus that you’ve read? Thank you
I’d suggest the books by E. P. Sanders, Dale Allison, and Paula Fredriksen, all very fine scholars.
I think we should be careful not to confuse self-interest with selfishness.
Capitalism recognizes self-interest: an entrepreneur wants his business to succeed. But my ability to pursue my interests is often dependent upon serving yours. An entrepreneur can create goods/services, employ people, provide something customers value, and make a profit.
If I value your candy bar more than my $1, and you value my $1 more than your candy bar, we can voluntarily exchange. We both get what we value more. Neither has to coerce the other. We serve one another by pursuing our interests.
That’s fundamentally different from saying, “Give me what you have because I have the power to take it.”
Of course, capitalism can be corrupted by greed/exploitation/fraud. But those are moral failures within a system, not proof that voluntary exchange/profit are inherently immoral. And this is where Jesus remains relevant. Jesus never taught “capitalism” but he taught us how to be human: love your neighbor, don’t defraud, keep your word, be generous, and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The Gospel doesn’t give us a 21st-century economic blueprint. It gives us people capable of living faithfully within a 21st-century economy.
I agree on the difference, very much.
As Friedman argues in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, “religious thinking was present at the creation of the young science of economics,” which reinforces the idea that our economic systems inevitably reflects past underlying values about human flourishing and the common good. I think you’re saying the Christian question is not whether capitalism is inherently good or bad, but whether the people participating in it use its opportunities to promote human dignity, fairness, generosity, and the well-being of others rather than allowing self-interest to become greed. I write this comment just minutes west of plutocracy central – Washington DC. I can’t help but feel the pull towards needing some other choice. Sitting at the cheap seats at an outdoor concert a few days ago, someone pointed out Jacqueline Mars (worth ~46 billion dollars) in the VIP patio. Feed the hungry? Heal the sick (afford health insurance)? Clothe the poor? Is that even possible when those with so much support a corrupt system on the other side of the Potomac? Seems like anything short of a radical change in our political and, perhaps, economic systems is going to fall short as wealth and power are concentrated is so few people.
I certainly don’t think we can be content wiht the current situation, at all. But I”m not sure a complete change of system (say, moving to a marxist system or a fully socialist one) would necessarily solve the problems we see. We definitely need reform, but in the capitalist system as it now exists, with unregulated amounts of money going into elections, I don’t see how it happens. But there’s still hope!
Jesus expressed a morality of behavior and condition he proposed for a kingdom of God, albeit limited to the devout Jew and requiring supernatural causation. Barring those conditions the Kingdom was to benefit all individuals.
Adam Smith’s inquiry found a Capitalism benefiting “The Wealth of Nations” , not all individuals. However, his “invisible hand” looked to many as the hand of god which they twisted into religious justification of the individual accumulation of wealth. This despite Smith’s warnings.
Please read “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by French economist Thomas Piketty. It focuses on wealth and income inequality in Europe and the United States since the 18th century based on hard data.
I have come to see that the way we bifurcate politically is mirrored in how people segregate religiously. Politically conservative people see putting themselves and family first as the path to well-being. Liberals see sharing with others as the path to greater wealth. Conservative church members see their personal salvation as their highest concern. Liberal church members see the well-being or others as the path to blessings.
I suspect this fork in the priorities of Christianity occurred early. I can imagine the Apostle Paul starting out echoing the message in James’s epistle, but quickly pivoting when he finds more people responding to a promise of personal salvation. He tries to have it both ways. In Romans he proclaims that belief leads to salvation, but then adds. “Should we continue to sin? … Absolutely not.” He then argues that we should be righteous purely out of appreciation of the grace embodied in Christ.
The same bifurcation shows up in the split between the Calvinist belief in a limited elect and those who see an ultimate universal salvation. Universalism being rejected because: “Then there would be no ‘winning’.”
Following Marx, I think we need to reject the analogy that capitalism is like wine, automobiles, guns and computer games. Capitalism– as a system of social relations of production that exists to accumulate capital via the creation of surplus value– is not something that we control. Rather, it controls us. (See “Marx’s Inferno” by William Clare Roberts). Whether you are a menial laborer, or a billionaire capitalist, the system is in control, not the individual. That means that, regardless of moral disposition, everyone in a capitalist system is compelled to abide by the dictates of the marketplace, or lose his/her fragile place in the system.
Great comments everyone and congrats that they are all civil comments.
I am now 71 years old and during my life I’ve NEVER seen an end-to-end (E2E) capitalistic defense. Not by any economist. Would love to learn of one. Any company or individual that creates something that never existed before, including processed food, wine, clothes, etc. should clean up after themselves. No profits unless waste products are remediated, ships are deconstructed and all materials reprocessed, etc. Deposits and recycle costs work here.
Now, as a consumer I’m willing to consider the appropriate price for a product that includes E2E management. If that price is more than people are willing to pay, then don’t buy it. This is where regulations whether imposed by governments or self-imposed by companies are valuable. If a company can’t make a profit within an E2E system, well then that is very capitalistic. You see, the cost of regulations are not the issue. The issue is WHO pays the E2E cost WHEN. Typically society, i.e. taxpayers clean up messes. I want the costs to be on the producers. Oh, and prevention is ALWAYS less costly than cleanup.
Hello Prof. Ehrman,
I am so happy to hear that someone like you will be writing a book on this topic.
In my experience, one of the biggest roadblocks for having meaningful discussions about this is that many framings are misleading and unhelpful. As one example, in the 80’s when I was at a Jesuit high school and Liberation Theology was all the rage with them, one of their most popular lines was an observation made by a priest in Latin America at the time: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”
My objection to that description is that it oversimplifies so much. But for many people – that is the pinnacle of their level of discourse on this topic.
There is something else that I think is problematic: because the writers of the NT all believed that the eschaton was right around the corner, there is some disdain for material wealth and a romanticization of poverty. (I know that you know all this far better than I do.) Christianity’s parent, Judaism, doesn’t romanticize poverty.
Great points. And even though the priest is oversimplifying, I still think it’s a great line!
Thank you Prof. Ehrman.
If I may, I believe that there are three possible answers to “Was Jesus a Capitalist?”
1. Yes
2. No
3. He wouldn’t care
I actually believe the answer is number 3.
First, that answer avoids anachronisms. The second is, it does fit with one interpretation of the parable of the rich young man, given by, of all people, the personal finance commentator Dave Ramsey: “Does God want you to be wealthy? I don’t think God cares. God wants you, and if poverty is in the way between you and God – then poverty is the problem. If wealth is in the way between you and God – then wealth is the problem.”
Second, the gospels are silent on a lot of issues that are important to us now 2,000 years later: one sample is slavery. I think there are a lot of questions around why aren’t certain progressive topics mentioned in the gospels. Some answers are pretty straightforward and some are really interesting (I think).
If the historical or literary Jesus didn’t say anything about slavery where people are property, then what would he care about who owns mechanical means of production?
I don’t think he cared either.
A market economy is at the present time the only way of determining the opportunity costs of resources, an important consideration discussed by Ludwig von Mises. Given the recent development of computer resources, I’m not sure this will remain true in the future–perhaps some kind of mathematical simulation will give us a solution more compatible with “economic democracy” as the left defines it. In any case, if AI makes most jobs obsolete, some major changes to the economic system will become essential.