Christ, Marx, and the Liberation of Slaves

I have received some pushback on my previous article, which argued that Karl Marx was, indeed, largely to blame for the horrors of communism.  A young philosopher named Eric DeJardin wrote a rebuttal on my Facebook page, which I will answer later.  But first, let me respond to a second and closely-related challenge he issued:  

DM: "And my demonstration of how Marx was to blame for the Gulag, which enslaved tens of millions, remains untouched."

ED: "I responded to it pretty extensively on your FB page. We're in the middle of discussing it, so it's not exactly 'untouched.'  Anyway, by your own criteria a better case can be made for holding Christianity responsible for slavery in Christian nations than can be made for holding Marx responsible for atrocities in Marxist nations.  Heck, we can point to texts plainly supporting slavery in the Bible while, as you have admitted, you can't even say that Marx would have supported what was done in his name." (emphasis mine)

My mistake.  Eric did try to rebut my arguments.  Good for him.  This is a better forum for more in-depth discussions, so I intend to answer his arguments here.  (Though one gets the feeling, with Marx and these young philosophers, that pushing them away from Marx, is like trying to talk Juliet into keeping from Romeo, after she has been smitten by Cupid's arrow.)

But first, let's tackle Eric's claim that by my six criteria for historical causation, given in that article, Christianity is more responsible for slavery than Marx is for communist atrocities.  The evidence points overwhelmingly in the opposite direction, I will argue.  

I. Judging Christianity and Marxism, Half a Dozen Criteria

1. Precedence.  "First, A must precede B, to cause it . . ."

"Christianity cannot be blamed for the general phenomena of inquisitions, or credited for the institution of marriage, since people were abusing others, marrying, or doing both at the same time, long before the first noel range out . . . 

"What belongs to our species as a whole cannot be credited to or blamed on any particular belief system . . . "

Nothing about slavery in Christian countries was unusual, except its ending.  Human beings had been enslaving one another since the dawn of time.  And the particular forms slavery took in Christian countries (including chattel slavery) were not unusual, either.  So by the criterion of precedence, it is hard to say Christianity caused slavery -- though easy to argue that it caused the abolition of slavery.  Slaves had often been set free before Christianity, but abolition movements were unusual.  (One finds hints of them here or there, such as under the rebel Wang Mang who temporarily overthrew the Han Dyansty.)      

Communism combined common and original elements, as I said: 

"KKK-like secret societies, and scapegoating, are common in world history, especially in the wake of a cataclysmic conflict like the Civil War.  So neither Christ nor Marx could have invented scapegoating or secret societies as a whole, but could have inspired or influenced the form a particular such phenomenon took . . . 

"Some other aspects of communism-in-practice were also common: dictatorship, mass murder, scapegoating, mass human bondage (when technology allowed).  But other parts of the system were fairly unusual.  Communes were established in most communist states.  They were not the first communes in history, but they were unusual in being established on a top-down basis, and the extreme to which, say, the Maoists and Kmer Rouge took them.  The attempt to put the proletariat in charge (or intellectuals in the name of the proletariat) was also unusual.  Attacks on one religion or other are not unique, but wholesale destruction represented a stark break from the past.  Rule by the communist party, and party organization from the top down to the village, school, and platoon levels, did not I think have close parallels in prior Russian or Chinese societies."  

So the Criterion of Precedence does not encourage us to blame Christ for slavery.  But it is easy to see how Marx's teaching may. in theory, have caused many of the evils of communism.  

2. Proximity.  "Second, like magnetism, the closer you stand, the harder a social influencer pulls.  Mohammed preached against idols, and before his death, Mecca had been cleared of them.  Marx advocated revolution, and seventy years later, the October Revolution erupted.  Most often, we are influenced by teachings we see lived out around us.  A hurricane spawned near Africa may break on Cape Cod, but only when warm water lies between source and destination.  Similarly, an ancient scripture may build great force over millennia, but only when the “warm water” of a practicing community of believers keeps it going . . . Proximity matters."

Early Christians did not, so far as I know, bring about any upsurge in slave-trading, or in slave ownership.  Indeed, in another post on this site, "Abolition of Slavery: The Early Years," I describe opposition to slavery in the Early Church.  And a reader cited a letter (which I have now verified) telling how St. Augustine's congregation liberated 120 slaves, a common sort of thing for them to do, Augustine implies:  

"About four months before I wrote this letter, a crowd of people collected from different regions, but particularly from Numidia, were brought here by Galatian merchants to be transported from the shores of Hippo (It is only, or at least mainly, the Galatians who are so eager to engage in this form of commerce). However, a faithful Christian was at hand, who was aware of our practice of performing acts of mercy in such cases; and he brought the news to the church. Immediately, about 120 people were set free by us (though I was absent at the time), some from the ship which they had to board, others from a place where they had been hidden before being put on board. We discovered that barely five or six of these had been sold by their parents. On hearing about the misfortunes that had led the rest of them to the Galatians, via their abductors and kidnappers, hardly one of us could restrain their tears." 

So there is no positive link between early Christianity and an increase in slavery: on the contrary, some push-back already occurred, including from the greatest early Christian thinker after St. Paul, and from others whom I cite, like Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Patrick.  

By contrast, as mentioned, revolution followed Marx within decades.  And after revolution, communes, abolition of private property, attacks on "religion," Dictatorship of the (alleged) Proletariat, secret police, mass arrests, and all the rest.  Not all of this was unique to communism (Point One), but much of it was highly unusual in European history, as was widely recognized at the time. 

So by the Criterion of Proximity, too, Marx can be credibly blamed for the Gulag, but Christ cannot reasonably be blamed for any increase in slavery.  (Which did not, it seems, occur for 1500 years.)    

3. "Third, duration.  Sometimes a religion is quickly accepted, but its deeper implications take generations to sink in." 

I should have made a distinction with this criterion, which is in some conflict with Criterion Two.  If the agents of social change gain great political power, change is often instituted quickly.  For instance, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young overthrew American tradition within their community, and instituted polygamy from the top down.  Chairman Mao overthrew the "Four Olds" and Confucian traditions within three decades.  However, both reforms proved short-lived: Mormon polygamy, because the larger American culture refused to admit Utah until they banned it, Maoism, because in later years, the Chinese Communist Party began to find Confucius useful.  (Though some reforms stuck, for instance, few Chinese now burn incense to ancestors.)  

I would argue that abolition of slavery was one of those "deeper implications" that took a while to sink in among Christians.  It was not imposed top-down when Christians finally took power, centuries after Christ.  But as shown above, and in the rest of that article, the anti-slave logic of the Gospel began having an effect early on through thinkers like Gregory of Nyssa and even (in a less sweeping manner) St. Augustine, an effect which grew, though there was often push-back, due to various forms of self-interest.  

Because Marxists gained dictatorial power, the effect of their thinking revealed itself early on, when zeal was still fiery, and then began to die down.  Early social experiments tended to be far infused with radical ideology, early in the revolutionary periods in Russia, China, Peru, Vietnam, and Cambodia.  Then reality began to set in.  People became exhausted by revolutionary fervor, and old ways reasserted themselves.  

Read The Mountains Sing by Nguyễn Phan Quế Mai, for an account of how that process played out in   

North Vietnam.  

4. An active ingredient.  "Fourth, something in the alleged cause should explain its supposed effect.  If Islam is blamed for encouraging prepubescent marriages, one should find something in the life of Mohammed or early Muslim teaching that encourages or allows men to marry young girls.  (Such as records of his consummating marriage to the nine-year-old Aisha.)  If Christianity is credited for saving girls from foot-binding in China, that claim will be strengthened if we find Jesus or the apostles helping women in analogous ways in the New Testament . . . "

Eric addresses this important criterion by claiming that the Bible clearly justifies slavery, while Marx opposed it.  (Forgetting, perhaps, that my argument against Marx does not particularly focus on slavery, though yes, his followers did resurrect it on a massive scale, for fairly predictable reasons.)  

So this is a key criterion, which I will focus on a little more than the others.  (But don't worry, I will be brief -- a thorough treatment would take a book!)   

In that previous article, I pointed to many "active ingredients" in Marx's personality and teaching which led to the Gulag and other horrors.  I need not repeat or explain them all again here.      

What does the Bible say about slavery?  Many think that the Bible is all over the map on the subject.  I wrote: 

"Perhaps religious texts are mere Rorschach ink blot tests: Mother Theresa and the Grand Inquisitor read the same Bible, then depending on their character or upbringing, reach opposite conclusions about how to treat folks.  Yet as novelist Tom Wolfe noted in The Kingdom of Speech, from Mohammed to Marx, history demonstrates the power of words to shape society.  A linguistic artist himself, Wolfe recognized Jesus as one of five men whose words have cut most deeply . . . " 

As for words that cut deeply, note how Jesus' sayings struck: (a) A black slave in a pre-Civil War novel; (b) a white traveler in the same novel; (c) the author, and (d) Americans outside the South.  

Uncle Tom's Bible

Uncle Tom's Cabin, which is often credited with helping form an anti-slavery consensus in the North before the Civil War, surprised me when I first read it.  I knew several men in Harriet's family were famous preachers and Bible teachers, and vocally opposed slavery.  (I had even spoken in a forum at Second Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, where one brother served as pastor.)  But I didn't know that the novel was actually a kind of theological debate and a Bible study, not just a story.  

In Chapter 12, for instance, two white Christians on a boat on the Mississippi which is transporting slaves cross swords over slavery, as onlookers take the side that suits their interests: 

A. “It’s undoubtedly the intention of Providence that the African race should be servants,—kept in a low condition,” said a grave-looking gentleman in black, a clergyman, seated by the cabin door. “‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be,’ the scripture says.” 

"I say, stranger, is that ar what that text means?” said a tall man, standing by.

“'Undoubtedly. It pleased Providence, for some inscrutable reason, to doom the race to bondage, ages ago; and we must not set up our opinion against that.'

“'Well, then, we’ll all go ahead and buy up niggers,' said the man, “if that’s the way of Providence,—won’t we, Squire?'”

Here a preacher, obviously part of the Establishment, cites an obscure Old Testament passage which actually has nothing to do with slavery, to justify what the South wished to see justified.  Then slave-traders echo that reasoning to justify their lucrative line of work.  (Which they would have gone on doing without such help, or found other ideological support for.)  

Then a young man, whom Beecher may model on one of her brothers, or her theology-teaching husband, responds:

B. "A tall, slender young man, with a face expressive of great feeling and intelligence, here broke in, and repeated the words, 'All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.’ I suppose,” he added, “that is scripture, as much as ‘Cursed be Canaan.’”

Beecher is greatly understating her point, as she no doubt intends readers to recognize.  (Thus the satirical, "Is that ar what the text means?" Followed by the glib, "Undoubtedly.")  

"Do unto others" are the words of Christ himself.  And they obviously apply to the pitiful case described onboard, of an old lady whose only remaining child is snatched from her arms and sold to another owner.  (While the first passage is, again, not about slavery at all.)  Beecher knows that the words of Jesus trump a mis-cited and irrelevant Old Testament passage. She then satirically goads her readers not to be hardened to such evil for the sake of national unity, even: 

"The trader had arrived at that stage of Christian and political perfection which has been recommended by some preachers and politicians of the north, lately, in which he had completely overcome every humane weakness and prejudice.  His heart was exactly where yours, sir, and mine could be brought, with proper effort and cultivation. The wild look of anguish and utter despair that the woman cast on him might have disturbed one less practiced; but he was used to it. He had seen that same look hundreds of times. You can get used to such things, too, my friend; and it is the great object of recent efforts to make our whole northern community used to them, for the glory of the Union."

This passage satires how Scripture is abused to justify what Beecher shows it cannot justify.  Later in the same chapter, Beecher shows her hand more clearly, through the Christ-figure of Uncle Tom himself: 

C. "Tom had watched the whole transaction from first to last, and had a perfect understanding of its results. To him, it looked like something unutterably horrible and cruel, because, poor, ignorant black soul! he had not learned to generalize, and to take enlarged views. If he had only been instructed by certain ministers of Christianity, he might have thought better of it, and seen in it an every-day incident of a lawful trade; a trade which is the vital support of an institution which an American divine tells us has “no evils but such as are inseparable from any other relations in social and domestic life.” But Tom, as we see, being a poor, ignorant fellow, whose reading had been confined entirely to the New Testament, could not comfort and solace himself with views like these."

Beecher's point is that a hardened, establishment preacher, motivated by social standing, money, or national interest, can indeed find warrant for slavery in the Old Testament, even if he has to twist things a little.  And some verses, taken out of the full context of Scripture, may help even more.  But Christians are supposed to look to Christ for their example, and interpret Scripture through him.  And no one with any sense could read the New Testament -- not just this one verse, but hardly any of it -- and deny that the practices of American slavery were the opposite of what Christ taught and modeled -- and his disciples. 

For Augustine's animus against slave traders is explicitly affirmed in the New Testament, and would apply to those on that boat in Uncle Tom's Cabin, if the preacher were courageous enough to tell the truth:  

"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers . . . "

There is nothing in the New Testament to explain any upsurge in slave-trading under the Christian watch, which would in fact not occur for more than a millennia, and then only after the Muslim slave trade had primed that pump for centuries.  

Eric cites the verse that instructs slaves to obey their masters, not to kill them.  And really, would Christianity be Christianity, if it instructed people to kill their bosses?  Hierarchy is part of life, and must be observed, within the bounds of Christian law.  But Eric omits this following set of instructions: 

"And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

This is pretty revolutionary, in itself.  Masters should treat slaves "in the same way" as slaves treat masters?  And not only don't beat them, but don't even threaten them?  What's to keep them from running away, then?  

And slavery is not, a la Aristotle, a fundamental marker of human character.  We are all equal before God, who is the real boss.  

I already showed that there are many "active ingredients" in the life and teachings of Marx that explain the evils of communism: Marx's violent, arrogant character, his self-worship, his justification of class violence, his naivete about human nature, his over-generalizations, his absurd prophecies, his talk about the "dictatorship of the proletariat," his refusal to admit error, his hatred of God, etc.  

So by the fourth criterion, too, Marx can very reasonably be blamed for tyranny.  But Christ should be credited for the liberation of slaves, which began earlier than most people realize, and is still not complete.  

I might add that as a young missionary, I was inspired to try to liberate sex slaves in Asia, by passages in the Old Testament.    

5. Energetic motion. "Fifth, causation is also clearer if change moves uphill against so powerful an element in human nature.  Why would any man sleep with more than one woman?  The answer is too obvious, to most men, to need stating.  Lust and philandering need no explanation, nor do rape, conquest, polygamy, or enslavement of the weak . . . It takes moral energy to move society uphill against the gravitational resistance of political power."

This criterion, too, helps explain why Marx was in fact to blame for the Gulag.  Just to take one instance: common ownership of property, which led to so many millions of deaths and so much misery in China, was emphatically not normal for Chinese. They had to be forced into it, by Marxist ideologues.  The communes moved radically against human nature, and thus demonstrate ideological causation. 

By contrast, as noted, it has been normal since the dawn of time for the powerful to exploit the weak, including by enslaving them.  This requires no explanation by itself.  Chesterton, indeed, said early in the 20th Century that enslavement was very human, and could be expected again.  Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler would soon prove him a prophet.  

Of course, it did take some ideological energy to upset what had become European norms against slavery by that time, and Marx and Hitler did provide that energy.  But having established a dictatorship, demonized whole classes, and destroyed the economy by communizing property, mass slavery became a fairly natural expedient.  You have to blame someone for your mistakes!  (When did Marx ever accept blame?)  You have to make someone do the work once incentive is gone!  

Slavery was ubiquitous in the world in which Christianity first appeared.  Half of ancient residents of Athens were slaves.  If anything, early Christianity began fitfully to apply some brakes to human enslavement. 

So by this criterion, too, Eric has things backwards.  Marx's life and teachings help explain the radical, often anti-human, policies of his followers, which fairly quickly led into the old grooves of tyranny and slavery.  But Christ's disciples acted against human nature and interest to free slaves against opposition, then bring about abolition or effective near-abolition of slavery.  (The first time during the "Dark Ages.")       

   

6.  Citations.  "Finally, if reformers cite or allude to a text while instituting reform, that may indeed point to the source of their inspiration."

As I showed, Marx' disciples did cite Marx extensively, and translate and print his works, to justify and explain their actions. 

Yes, as mentioned above, Christians who wished to justify slavery also looked for, and found, verses which helped them do so.  Some of those citations were, no doubt, stronger than the one Stowe quoted.  

But I agree with Stowe, as did Wilberforce, and as did northerner abolitionists who were inspired by Scripture to risk their lives (against interest and Nature) to liberate slaves.  Read honestly, as Uncle Tom did, it is impossible to justify slavery from the life and teachings of Jesus, which are for Christians the heart of the Bible, from which all else must be interpreted.  Not just that one verse, but the tone and implications of the entire New Testament, and a deeper understanding of the Old, set world civilization up for what in fact occurred: a worldwide abolition movement, led by pious Christians like Harriet Beecher Stowe and Uncle Tom.    

So five of the six historical criteria I mentioned clearly show why Marx's teachings and example led to so much misery, so quickly, under the lead of his radical disciples.  Solzhenitsyn points out that some of the "losers," like Trotsky, were if anything worse!  The other criteria is ambivalent, and analyzed carefully, also indicts Marx.  But Jesus liberated slaves, he did not capture or mistreat them.  

Is Capitalism Moral?

Is Capitalism Moral?

Here's a thoughtful challenge to capitalism that came up on Facebook last year on this day, which I don't think I've answered yet. It was posed by Eric DeJardin in response to my description of slavery as an inherently "corrupt-making" institution. Doesn't capitalism also corrupt the capitalist?

"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)."

If Kant has something interesting to say about capitalism, I'll let the Eric DeJardin bring him in. Here are my thoughts:

1. Our relations with others can be divided, as Martin Buber did, into "I-It" and "I-Thou" perspectives. (But this will be my analysis, not his.)

2. "I-Thou" means (as I take it) that we enter into full personal relations with one whom we recognize and treat as a dignified and intrinsically valuable being.

3. "I-It" is more functional, treating the "other" essentially as a means to some goal.

4. For practical purposes, I-It relations are the norm. We may smile at the woman who takes our money at Burger King and wish her a good day, but we're mainly wondering why burgers have gotten so expensive, or whether we should order a side salad. She is mainly an instrument for a transaction, and you are mainly a customer through whom her paycheck will come, while she wonders whether she can afford a trip to Mexico this spring.

5. All big corporations, clans, or kingdoms see millions of such pragmatic transactions a day, in which one primarily views the "other" as a means to an end, or a roadblock (say, a slow driver in the left-hand lane) preventing you from reaching your goal.

6. Christians are called to recognize the "Thou-ness" of those with whom they interact, as we see from Jesus, both in his stories (Good Samaritan, etc), and in how he treated those he met. While the disciples often saw people as categories (harlot, Pharisee, old woman, etc), Jesus looked people in the eye.

7. Yet we cannot raise our hats, like Crocodile Dundee, to everyone in Manhattan. "Who touched me?" The disciples wondered why Jesus asked, because the crowd was pressing on all sides. Humans are also bodies which obey the laws of physics, such that one may need to get into a boat to separate oneself from their "it-ness" even to speak more clearly to their "thou-ness." If you pray for everyone who does 50 in a 60 or tailgates you when you're doing ten over the speed limit, you may be on the slow road to sainthood. Or you may crash, and arrive there more quickly.

8. Capitalists face these same trade-offs. We are called, by Christ, to treat both employees and customers as "thous," as persons made in the image of God, not as mere machines or money-sources. Yet if an employee fails to work productively, or a customer fails to pay, the "its" one produces will fail, which will harm other "thous" -- self, family, stock-owners, employees, devoted customers. This is a genuine dilemma for a believing businessman, exemplified by Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, who is trying to run businesses and help people, but then an employee falls through the cracks and is forced (out of his sight or knowledge, he's a busy man) into prostitution.

9. Trying to find the proper balance is inherently tricky. But so are moral choices in general -- an art, not a science, and an art that none of us practices perfectly.

10. Given that there is always a "quanta" of power in every society (Burke), those with great power will always find this balancing act more difficult, because their actions will impact more people, whose rights and needs will conflict.

11. Freedom is an absolute good. Adam and Eve in the Garden were given a choice. Jesus preached without compulsion or manipulation.

12. Free enterprise is therefore good in and of itself, though like the Garden, may act as a stage on which good or evil acts are taken.

13. The New Testament does warn: "If a man will not work, he should not eat." I think this implies that firing a lazy or dishonest employee is acceptable, as is giving lower wages to a less efficient employee -- though with an eye to mercy, and hoping that the "Thou" will repent or learn his job better. (Possibly by providing him with more schooling.)

14. There are incentives built into capitalism which can go either way. One may see it as effective to squeeze every last drop of blood out of one's employee, then drop him. Or one may recognize it as in one's "enlightened self-interest" to make her happy and healthy so she'll work harder and more honestly.

15. When one sees a capitalist treating employees as "thous," then, one may cynically, and perhaps correctly, suppose that he is merely acting in "enlightened self-interest," and despite the dogs-at-work policy, or the long holidays, he still sees employees essentially as "its."

16. Conversely, a genuinely compassionate manager may be forced by the demands of production and the many "thous" whom she cares for (children, aged parents, stock-holders, customers), to be very strict towards employees, to give less than they feel they need (one lump of coal, Bob Cratchit!), even to fire them in economic downturns.

17. In both cases, one should be careful in judging motives. God knows the heart.

18. In two parables, Jesus compared God to an employer who paid different wages to his managers, or paid laborers the same, even though some worked much longer hours than others. We are or should be equal before the law, but equality of outcome lies in tension with freedom and justice, since we are not equal in skill, honesty, luck, or value in I-it transactions, nor do we share equal needs or relationships with other workers or the boss.

19. The employers in both those stories seem to have been close enough to the action to know what was going on. In a large company, still more in government, it is often hard to figure that out.

20. Government rightly establishes rules to constrain those with power from abusing them. A just government (Madison recognized) must also recognize and make allowance for its own tendency to abuse power -- thus, "checks and balances."

21. Limited government is moral not only because it prevents the concentration of power, and therefore allows more freedom. But also, in countries where civilized norms of interaction are accepted, it is usually better to let people close to the situation figure the situation out and seek a just resolution. Outside intervention is sometimes necessary when local power has become corrupt, however, as in the South after the Civil War, or in lawsuits.

22. Freedom is not only an absolute good, it is also a relative good, because all else being equal, free competition encourages the production of more good things. By hypothesis, a Darwinian struggle tends to maximize the amount of life on a coral reef, or in a jungle. A struggle between companies likewise encourages a lively, rich, productive ecosystem of productive concerns.

23. But in a market in which competition is key, it is tempting to see competitors, or even employees and customers, as mere "its," bodies to drive off the road so one can get ahead.

24. At the same time, as Joseph Henrich shows in The WEIRDest People in the World, free markets have proven, even in remote regions of Africa, to encourage people to trust one another more. A strong correlation has been demonstrated between the presence of markets and how willing people are to trust strangers.

25. Competition occurs in non-capitalist societies as well. People will compete for food, sex, housing, fame, power, and living space regardless of whether cash is on the table. In New York City, for instance, there is it seems fierce competition for fixed-rent properties, which are a kind of wealth, hoarded by those rich enough in some sense to acquire them. In a communist Gulag, where money does not exist, competition is at its most ruthless, "Who-to-Whom," as Solzhenitsyn related.

26. Socialist countries may take cash off the table, or spread it around, but tend to concentrate power far more than countries with a free market. That is an empirical fact, demonstrated (I think) by history: no genuinely socialist society that I know of, has been very free, and most have been dictatorships, often governed by cruel tyrants.

27. Concentration of power is a necessary consequence of even democratic socialism. By taking money or stock away from "billionaires," (they used to say "millionaires," but those are now too common in capitalist countries to make a politically-auspicious target), the state necessarily concentrates power in its hands.

28. Even if the leader is elected by the people (democratic socialism), that concentration of wealth and power will draw unscrupulous people. "Power corrupts." It also attracts corrupt people, who become more corrupt by wielding it.

29. So while we always have a choice between seeing those around us as "thous" or "its," and both perspectives are to some degree valid at times, at least four systems emerge which create different practical incentives:

a. Capitalism without democracy. Here power is distributed economically, but concentrated politically.

b. Capitalism with democracy. Here power is distributed both economically and politically. However, growing wealth increases the relative political power of the wealthy. (Which can be offset by regulations, trust-busting presidents, and competition between capitalists.)

c. Socialism with democracy. Here power is distributed politically, but concentrated economically.

d. Socialism without democracy. Power is concentrated in both realms, and bad things tend to happen.

30. Yet all these systems also vary depending on culture, which ultimately derives from belief.

31. Both empirically, and theoretically, I think "b" is most moral, because it distributes power on two axis, and because market relations encourage people to trust one another more. We give strangers money every day, even let them into our homes (as I did an electrician yesterday), without compunction.

32. So no, capitalism does not make people corrupt, not more than other systems, though the rich of all kinds are tempted in special ways. It is as Jesus said of foods, money enters the pocket and is eliminated, but corruption creeps out of the heart.

33. Nor does capitalism save our souls, or make us genuinely moral beings. We can game any system. We can pretend to treat people as "thous," like the Pharisees, to seek the praise of men, while really only thinking of the bottom line.

33. Ironically, this past week, conservatives (including me) attacked a rich, white, male, 1% singer, and the rich, 1% capitalist TV and football executives who hired him. And then the Left rushed to defend that man. Some justified this by noting that he speaks Spanish, or because (I saw one say) to protect "brown" people from racist conservatives.

So now even "Christian" progressives are now celebrating a rich, white male 1%-er who sings in pornographic language about his many sexual conquests -- justifying it because he sings in Spanish, the language of some of the world's greatest imperialists.

An amazing inversion. And my criticism of that rich man is just what socialists say of capitalists in general -- that he treats "thous" (women) as "its," and encourages others, male and female, to do the same.

So clearly, capitalism does not ensure even minimal virtue, or protect society from the reward of its own twisted values. But while as a conservative, I have no problem with banning smut from public airwaves, or fining those who violate basic standards, I don't think the ultimate solution to America's moral problems can come from the top down. A society that winks at such exploitation, has become corrupt, and will corrupt all institutions, regardless of the structure of society.

In short, beginning with Adam and Eve, then Cain and Abel, freedom is a necessary, but insufficient, quality to allow us to recognize the Imago Deo in those around us, and respond to them as "thous," not mere tools for exploitation.