First, my comments, and the challenge I received:
DM: "Frederick Douglass' autobiography (ies) are wonderful writing, but often distressful reading. Christianity doesn't seem to have done the South much real good at that period, for instance. Douglass describes pious masters who went from singing hymns to beating or starving their slaves without a qualm. One of his masters got religion at a Methodist camp revival, and it just made him meaner. Douglass himself was a serious Christian as a young man, but found all this quite disappointing. (There were exceptions, which he gratefully describes.)
"Slavery was a corrupt-making institution: everything that came into contact with that rotten fruit, also went bad. From which we should ask: what about our worldview is not only immoral, but causes our faith, and our lives as a whole, to fester and stink? Much of what the Left says about 'Christian Nationalism' is hysterical and unjust, but certainly there are such temptations on the Right as well as on the Left."
ED: "Would you say that the imperative of viewing labor power as a commodity doesn't carry with it the danger of viewing people as commodities? If so, the latter is surely potentially soul-corrupting, especially if it tends to lead us to view them as mere commodities (in which case it very plausibly runs afoul of Kant's humanity formula of the CI."
I have not read Martin Buber for myself, but this question reminds me of his distinction between "I-It" and "I-Thou" interfaces. It is inherent to the nature of man to treat other persons in one of two ways: (1) as an object; (2) as a mutual subject, with whom one relates as a spiritual being.
A human being is, among other things:
a. A physical object with mass, subject to gravitational force.
b. An animal with instincts which seeks to satisfy those instincts, competing with other animals for space, air, water, food, mates, and money.
c. A social animal that exists in families, tribes, nations, churches, schools, and other social institutions, with hierarchies and rules.
d. A spiritual being in relation to God and other sapiential creatures.
It follows, then, that not capitalism in particular, but life in general "carries with it the danger of viewing people as commodities." We do, in fact, compete with other people, if only for the last seat on the bus, for a promotion, the best score in class, a girl a fish or the best room at a resort hotel.
To a linebacker, the quarterback is of necessity an "it," a "commodity." After the game, they might shake hands and nod at the "thou-ness" of the competition. Most of life must be lived on the "I-It" level: we cannot enter into a deep spiritual relationship with the guy tailgating us on the freeway, though we might let him pass. But is that because we recognize him as a troubled soul and have compassion on him, or so we can drive in peace?
Christian ethics, as exemplified in Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan, means looking at people we meet as "thous" and not just "its." The gospels amaze me because Jesus never seems to meet an "it," a "woman," a "Samaritan," a "cripple," or even a "Pharisee." He looks into the eyes of each person he encounters and says "I see you." So he never repeats himself, because he never meets the same person twice, or a category that renders any two people clones. He is always aware of the "Thou," even when he rebukes people.
Is this possible for a capitalist businessman? Does capitalism make "I-Thou" relationships impossible? Do pre or post capitalist social structures make "I-It" relationships either more or less frequent in comparison to "I-Thou" relationships?
The argument is that the businessman sees his laborers as mere "commodities," like his mules or his tractor or the produce of his factory.
Certainly that happens sometimes, maybe most often, just as it happens most often in every social structure. Students compete with one another. Teachers think of students, or their parents, as customers. Generals count their troops to calculate the chance of victory and glory, at a cost of so many lives. Even parents think of their children as extensions of their own ego, or perhaps someone to take care of them when they grow old.
These examples, though, may already suggest to you the importance of a hierarchy of relationships. It is an obscenity if a mother sees her children as no more than a McDonald's manager sees his employees. We cannot always think of the souls of those we interact with: say hi to the cashier, but both sides recognize that as a fleeting and mostly instrumental transaction. A saint might go further in seeing each person as a soul for whom Christ died. But you ought to think that way about your own kids.
The difference between capitalism and slavery is that the relationship between boss and worker is mutually-established. The slave doesn't choose to be a slave, usually, and seldom is allowed to choose her owner. The employee, on the other hand, does agree to work for so much an hour, applying to several companies before finding a job that he thinks will meet his needs. They sign a contract. The employee receives a wage. He can leave when he wants. He can't usually be sold to another cotton farmer down the river.
Still, both sides may see their relationship mostly as "I-It." "The boss" is grumpy today, better avoid her. This employee is inefficient and has low ratings from customers, better let him go.
So yes, the transactional push of the bottom line -- for both parties -- encourage "I-It" thinking, as does driving on a freeway in competition with other cars, or asking a girl out in competition with other boys, etc. But "I-Thou" thinking is also possible: real concern for the other person. Growing up in the home of a small businessman with employees, I saw that this was possible. And whether working in a state or private business, the challenge of seeing those under me -- teachers or students -- as human beings with whom I can enter into a spiritual relationship, is really not that different.
So what's the difference between slavery and private enterprise?
The very fact that the master-slave relationship is not free, corrupts on both sides. Douglass makes this extremely clear. The master beats the slave for being "lazy" because he faints from heat stroke, because he knows the slave has no financial incentive to work hard, and so must be incentivized with punishment. The slave cannot change masters, cannot choose her own mate, cannot raise her own children, works for the benefit of another, eats and dresses poorly, and dies without honor or love.
You may say, employees are also often poor and unloved.
But the market system creates incentives in both directions. The worker has the chance of doing better, because her hard work makes more money for her boss. Therefore all things being equal (though of course they are not always equal), the boss is forced to share the benefits of produce, to treat his employees more and more like "thous." He is competing for good workers, as the workers are competing for good salaries and benefits.
And if you treat someone like a "thou," you may begin to think of them as spiritual beings holy in the sight of God, as well.
Slave society covers up for the bosses even when they kill "their" property. It must do so, otherwise the slaves would rebel, and the society would fall apart. But in a market economy, even a boss can generally be arrested for murder.
So while people may treat one another functionally under any system, and generally do, the incentive structures of slave and capitalist societies fundamentally point in opposite directions. Personally, I have almost always gotten along well with my bosses and with my subordinates. Yes, we laborers were "commodities," and sometimes my bosses made it clear that that is how they saw us, for the most part. And frankly, sometimes that was appropriate. But I think capitalism tends, by its nature, to create more incentive for genuine human relations than either slavery or statism.
Hierarchies are, as Jordan Peterson points out, and Burke before him, inevitable in any system.
No comments:
Post a Comment