[This] political economy of death is the precondition for the emergence of “choice” as the holy grail of our moral culture. It’s neither coincidental nor unironical that the word so decisive in the legitimation of corporate hegemony is also pivotal to the defense of abortion. First, both abortion and corporate capitalism are justified in the liberal individualist language of self-ownership and autonomous will. Second, the language of choice obscures and even nullifies the moral substance of the choices made. And third, the alacrity with which “choice” is now invoked is, I suspect, an indication of how meaningless — and therefore how few –our choices have really become. Abortion becomes more conceivable as a practice, not only when sex is utterly divorced from pregnancy, but when the organization of work hampers or precludes the reproductive practices of sex, birth, and child-rearing. If we are going to combat abortion, then I would suggest that we appropriate and transform the language of choice, and argue that abortion is the hallmark of a culture that forces everything to pivot around the accumulation of capital. We must tie abortion to a political economy that controls our work, warps our practices of love, and compensates with the perverse but beguiling enchantments of commodified freedom.
From “Mammon’s Deadly Grin: The New Gospel of Wealth and the Old Gospel of Life,” presented at the Culture of Life Conference, Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture, Nov. 30, 2001
Which is exactly why we should be supporting candidates and policies that remove the fiction of person-hood from corporations.
Brilliant quote!
But I anticipate a few vultures associated (albeit loosely) with the Acton Instiute will swoop in squawking some creed derived from the Capitalist Gospel.
YES!
A great quote — though many will of course soon be noting that McCarraher isn’t really opposed to abortion, and that’s why he’s trying to shift the issue to capitalism.
It’s interesting that the emergence of Protestantism, capitalism/industrialism, and Enlightenment deism/atheism all emerged out of the same British-German ethos of protest against classical socio-political structures and embrace of individual choice/liberty. Taken the theoretical approach to history, figures as disparate as David Schindler, Joseph Ratzinger, and William Barrett have highlighted the fundamental links between these historical phenomena that began as theory and now largely dictate practice, three hundred years later. The conversations of academicians in the 1600-1800′s has become the talk of the marketplace and town square of the 1900′s-2000′s.
That theory makes perfect sense, except for the fact that abortion far pre-dates capitalism (why do you think ancient Church fathers mentioned abortion?), and the abortion rate in Soviet Russia was staggeringly high.
Given how profligate this site is with “moderation,” can someone try to get Mark D. to be more civil? Thanks.
S.B. – Makes no difference. McCarraher is not saying abortion cannot exist without capitalism. He is connecting the ideology of choice with capitalism:
[This] political economy of death is the precondition for the emergence of “choice” as the holy grail of our moral culture.
Abortion becomes more conceivable as a practice, not only when sex is utterly divorced from pregnancy, but when the organization of work hampers or precludes the reproductive practices of sex, birth, and child-rearing.
Given how profligate this site is with “moderation,” can someone try to get Mark D. to be more civil? Thanks.
Ask him yourself if you think he is uncivil. Surely you don’t need a babysitter?
Well, they aren’t connected at all, except on the most abstract level. Abortion as a practice pre-dates capitalism by thousands of years. On the flip side, capitalism pre-dates the political movement to legalize abortion by hundreds of years. In fact, the political movement to legalize abortion arose only after capitalism had been strongly limited by various quasi-socialist programs and regulatory measures both here and in Europe.
That theory makes perfect sense, except for the fact that abortion far pre-dates capitalism (why do you think ancient Church fathers mentioned abortion?), and the abortion rate in Soviet Russia was staggeringly high.
Of course it does. So does atheism, crypto-socialism, and contraception. The legality of abortion, the social acceptance of it, and the prominence of it are correlated to post-Enlightenment industrialism. And, if you still insist on taking the historical route, then would we not conclude by your reasoning that abortion predates Roe v. Wade, and so a theory that attempts to tie the practice of abortion to a post-Roe world would not, as you say, make “perfect sense”?
Capitalism, liberty, individual rights, and freedom of choice stem from an ethos, not from the U.S., the Soviet Union, or Gambia. But if you insist on forwarding the Soviet Union as a counter-example, perhaps we can address it by recalling that Marx and Engels thought out of much the same British-German ethos (neither was Russian!). And we all know that Marx’s ideas have origins in Hegel, Kant, and Rousseau. The making of the modern social mind, as I have called it, is a fascinating interface of rejectionism, individualism, and hyper-volitionalism. No appeal to some specific, concrete entity (e.g., the Soviet Union) is going to challenge that theory. Rather, one must build a case against it through an examination of the history of ideas. I recommend beginning with David Hume on the British side and with Immanuel Kant on the German. Trace these trajectories (which go back even to Spinoza and Leibnitz) all the way to J.S. Mill, G.W.F. Hegel, and Karl Marx.
Abortion predates capitalism? Not really. The killing on the unborn has been around for millenia, as has the buying and selling of goods on the market. What links the modern phenomena is the justification based on notions of personal automony.
S.B. has conflated the actual practice of abortion with the ideological constructs that gave rise to its mass availability and legal protection. As Michael I. notes, this quote (and the take of Schindler, Ratzinger, and Barrett) is much deeper than a mere cause and effect matter. Ideas…ideological matrix…practical consequences that enshrine and render socially viable practices…that about sums it up.
I like John Paul II on this, as well (this may aid you a bit, S.B., in grasping what Michael’s quote is actually saying):
“A certain concept of freedom, which has widespread support in public opinion at present, diverts attention from ethical responsibilities. Appeal is made today to freedom alone. It is often said: what matters is to be free, released from all constraint or limitation, so as to operate according to private judgment, which in reality is often pure caprice. This much is clear: such liberalism can only be described as primitive. Its influence, however, is potentially devastating.”
“We must ask how this common treasury of the human race, the treasury of so many different cultures, can be built up over time, and we must ask how best to respect the proper relationship between economics and culture in deference to the overwhelming power of one-sided market forces. It matters little, in fact, whether this kind of tyranny is imposed by Marxist totalitarianism or by Western liberalism.” (John Paul II, Memory and Identity)
Abortion predates capitalism? Not really. The killing on the unborn has been around for millenia, as has the buying and selling of goods on the market. What links the modern phenomena is the justification based on notions of personal automony.
But “personal automony [sic]” is one of the very justifications often used for the socialist system that McCarraher prefers (i.e., because individuals under socialism would have more autonomy to decide about their working conditions, health care, etc., etc.). So that just bolsters my point that the movement to legalize abortion arose not at the time of “post-Enlightenment industrialism,” but only after significant limitations had already been put on capitalism in the mid-20th century.
Indeed, the “anarchist” movement of which Michael I. claims to be a member (when he’s not arguing for increasing the size of government) often praises individual autonomy. In fact, Michael’s own website links to an “Anarchy FAQ” that ridicules “bans on abortion” as involving governmental “intrusion” into “personal spheres.” Michael’s recommended website also says that “anarchists see teenage sexual liberation as a means of developing free individuals.”
Everybody believes in personal “autonomy” in some respects but not in others. It’s quite unsubstantiated to claim that capitalism has some peculiar connection to the belief in autonomy as to abortion.
As an aside (not intended to become the topic of this comment thread): even think tanks and institutes such as the Acton Institute admit that the modern notion of liberty and its remainders stem from the Enlightenment ethos, which is why you will see many attempts by to stress the so-called “Christian” beliefs of Locke, Kant, and A. Smith. But anyone who has seriously studied the Enlightenment philosophers, moralists, and economists knows that Christianity in its primitive and medieval forms had little to do with the Western conception of liberty today. I recently read in Deal Hudson’s book that Locke’s Christian faith was core to his Two Treatises on Government and his Essay. Ha!
S.B.,
Now you are conflating several concepts of “autonomy.” It appears you are doing so because these various systems and persuasions use the same word. It is not enough for you merely to suggest that they all appeal to the same ethos or fundamental concept simply because they use a common term, which happens to be hardly unequivocal across traditions. How are socialist “autonomy,” liberalist “autonomy,” anarchic “autonomy,” and even Christian “autonomy,” for the matter, similar or commensurable? What you are doing is like if I were to claim that St. Anselm’s concept of “freedom” is the same as that of Ockham simply because they use the same word. Another point: Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue and Whose Justice? Which Rationality? are quite good at aiding one in the avoidance of conflation of concepts or traditions on account of similar vocabulary.
Poli — you’re doing too much name-dropping and not enough analysis.
1) As I said, the Anarchy website that Michael likes uses the concept of “autonomy” in precisely the respect that is relevant here, i.e., in praising sexual liberation and abortion.
2) To the extent that I referred to “autonomy” as used to praise socialist systems, that is just as relevant to sexual autonomy as is the “autonomy” in capitalist systems.
That is, no one is giving any reason that sexual autonomy is any more tied to the autonomy sought by capitalism (the autonomy to be free from government) than to the autonomy sought by socialism (the autonomy to make personal decisions free from the obstacles presented by circumstances of life).
But “personal automony [sic]” is one of the very justifications often used for the socialist system that McCarraher prefers (i.e., because individuals under socialism would have more autonomy to decide about their working conditions, health care, etc., etc.).
I’m assuming you are using “the” anarchist movement as an example of a type of socialism that invokes “personal autonomy.” Fair enough. Many forms of anarchism are rooted in individualist liberalism, and that type of anarchism is certainly reflected in the Anarchist FAQ. The FAQ also discusses anarcho-capitalism. But there is no single anarchism. Many forms of anarchism, particularly non-western forms and forms that do not tie themselves so strongly to “classical” anarchism, are not rooted in liberalism and thus would not invoke “personal autonomy.” The anarchism that I am drawn to is not the individualist type (which leads to libertarianism, IMO), but the communalist type. In particular, it is the biblical type which invokes not “personal autonomy” but the Hebrew prophetic tradition of the critique of power. Communalist anarchism is anarchistic not because it holds personal autonomy above all else, but because it values the autonomy of authentic communities.
It is also important to note that McCarraher is not an anarchist, nor do I think he would invoke “personal autonomy” in is arguments for socialism.
Also important to consider that perhaps I might not agree with every single word uttered on the websites that my own site links to. It is ridiculous for you to assume otherwise.
Michael — fair enough, but all you’re establishing is that you (personally) and Eugene McCarraher (supposedly) wouldn’t rely much on notions of personal autonomy.
That doesn’t change the fact that other people in many different political movements — from anarchism to socialism — DO praise and rely on notions of personal autonomy, both as to their overall political beliefs and as to abortion in particular. Indeed, unless you’re a complete totalitarian, you believe in personal autonomy as to some aspects of life. It’s nothing unique to “capitalism.”
Poli — you’re doing too much name-dropping and not enough analysis.
I linked to a previous post wherein I do the analysis. I don’t name drop unless I’ve done the reading. Here’s the link again.
1) As I said, the Anarchy website that Michael likes uses the concept of “autonomy” in precisely the respect that is relevant here, i.e., in praising sexual liberation and abortion.
Here you confuse a species of autonomy with the genus “autonomy.” What I am asking for is not how one practical aspect in one tradition may resemble another, but how two traditions that have an elemental variety of “autonomy” would be similar. You asserted this above, and so I am asking for your conceptual analysis. Thus far, you have cited only disparate examples. An example or instantiation is not a definition, rule, or type.
2) To the extent that I referred to “autonomy” as used to praise socialist systems, that is just as relevant to sexual autonomy as is the “autonomy” in capitalist systems.
Of course it’s relevant…I’ve made it so by pressing you to link your claim of a singular concept of autonomy back to the plurality of traditions in which you claim that this singular concept inheres. The issue is not relevance here. The issue is whether your claims are congruent with the actual history of ideas and the actual implementation of these theories. Hence, I mention specific thinkers who have played the founding part in these ideas and implementations.
That is, no one is giving any reason that sexual autonomy is any more tied to the autonomy sought by capitalism (the autonomy to be free from government) than to the autonomy sought by socialism (the autonomy to make personal decisions free from the obstacles presented by circumstances of life).
Not really sure what you are doing here. Since you are the one linking “sexual autonomy” to both genera of autonomy in capitalism and socialism, it seems that you need to show us how this link obtains. In other words, the one issuing brute assertion needs to clarify and defend that assertion.
I can’t tell that you’re saying anything meaningful. Try again? I’ve made a fairly simple claim: To the extent that legalized abortion arises from a notion of personal autonomy, that notion doesn’t have any peculiar connection to capitalism per se; at least, no one has demonstrated as much (rather than just offering their say-so); instead, I find people who favor other political systems also claiming that their preferred system favors personal autonomy (and autonomy over abortion in particular).
Do you agree or disagree? No mumbo-jumbo about pluralities of genera, etc.
That doesn’t change the fact that other people in many different political movements — from anarchism to socialism — DO praise and rely on notions of personal autonomy,
It’s nothing unique to “capitalism.”
Once again, you are taking a commonality in terminology and running with it as if it were a commonality in concept. And once more, the use of common terminology across tradition does not betoken common conception or ethos. And, finally, once again, this what is incumbent upon you is to establish before this discussion can go any further.
Again, I have no idea what you’re talking about. If anarchists specifically praise the autonomy involved in decisions about sexuality and abortion, I take that to mean that they are praising the autonomy involved in decisions about sexuality and abortion — not that they’re saying something similar in “terminology” but different in “concept.”
S.B. – I can’t tell that you’re saying anything meaningful. Least of all your assertion that “socialism” “praises” the notion of personal autonomy. It’s unclear to me what you are basing this claim on.
If anarchists specifically praise the autonomy involved in decisions about sexuality and abortion, I take that to mean that they are praising the autonomy involved in decisions about sexuality and abortion — not that they’re saying something similar in “terminology” but different in “concept.”
If anarchists specifically praise the autonomy involved in decisions about sexuality and abortion, I take that to mean that they have in some ways appropriated precisely the anti-human dynamics of capitalism and the ideology of choice. It’s a distinctly euro-american capitalist version of anarchism.
S.B.,
Do you agree or disagree? No mumbo-jumbo about pluralities of genera, etc.
Well, this “mumbo-jumbo” is the actual stuff of discourse in the founding ideas of the Enlightenment. If it is not “meaningful” to you, then you obvious have little acquaintance with any of these ideas or the thinkers who engendered them. My apologies for invoking the very basic philosophical language in which these ideas were originally framed. It seems to me that you are skirting the issue. Like I said, read what this links to. You may find it a bit easier to apprehend.
I’ve made a fairly simple claim:
Actually, to be truthful, your claim is anything but simple. You have invoked an entire philosophical, sociological, and economic enterprise in order to advance something for which you have not even bothered to defend. Anyhow, here’s your “simple claim”:
To the extent that legalized abortion arises from a notion of personal autonomy, that notion doesn’t have any peculiar connection to capitalism per se; at least, no one has demonstrated as much (rather than just offering their say-so); instead, I find people who favor other political systems also claiming that their preferred system favors personal autonomy (and autonomy over abortion in particular).
Breaking down your claim:
That notion under discussion is what you here call “personal autonomy.” So you say that “personal autonomy”:
1) has no peculiar connection to capitalism in itself;
2) no one has demonstrated this connection;
3) people who like other systems besides capitalism say these systems favor personal autonomy.
I think (3) is irrelevant, since it does not deal directly with (2) and it seems like it would issue from (1) if (1) is true. So let’s focus on (1) and (2). In (1) you suggest that there is no connection between personal autonomy and capitalism “per se.” But if capitalism does not take for granted personal autonomy in the interaction, exchange, and organization of individuals, then is personal autonomy not a presupposition of capitalist society?
In (2), you claim that no one here has demonstrated the connection between personal autonomy and capitalism. Does such a connection have to be demonstrated if personal autonomy is foundational to capitalism, that is, included in the very conception of capitalism?
(1) and (2) seem to hinge upon whether or not personal autonomy is connected to capitalism. I say they are…and even more then that: they are inextricable. And Adam Smith would agree. Why don’t you?
Perhaps you completely misphrased your “simple claim.” Did you mean to say that abortion is not necessarily connected to the personal autonomy that is constitutive of capitalism? If so, then please restate your claim.
If anarchists specifically praise the autonomy involved in decisions about sexuality and abortion, I take that to mean that they have in some ways appropriated precisely the anti-human dynamics of capitalism and the ideology of choice.
Autonomy = capitalism. How do I know this? Because if any non-capitalists praise or rely on autonomy, it’s because they got it from capitalism.
Circular arguments are great, aren’t they?
Well, this “mumbo-jumbo” is the actual stuff of discourse in the founding ideas of the Enlightenment. If it is not “meaningful” to you, then you obvious have little acquaintance with any of these ideas or the thinkers who engendered them.
Just try to write more clearly, that’s all.
Michael,
S.B. is not saying anything meaningful at this point, which may be why he is attempting to turn it around on us. Sort of an intellectual Houdini trick. In any case, from what I can tell, S.B. is making a very simple twofold mistake:
1) he is citing an example (species) of autonomy (sexual autonomy) and using it to define and characterize the concept and type (genus) of autonomy;
2) he concludes that term “autonomy” in its socio-political context is univocal (the word refers or signifies one single concept), so when he sees it used, he disregards the actual contexts and substitutes uniformly the same definition (he thinks “autonomy” means the same thing in all contexts)
My college students do this all the time.
Just try to write more clearly, that’s all.
I do my best to represent the actual traditions rather than distilling it to the point where foundations are no longer discernible. It’s the only way to keep from talking past the other person.
Michael,
I am surprised. I completely agree with one of your posts! McCarrahar is correct. Rampant corporate skewed capitalism is significantly responsible for abortion as well as contraception. The modern American economy encourages or nearly forces families to require 2 or even 3 incomes to support a family with even 2 children. The last line nails it “We must tie abortion to a political economy that controls our work, warps our practices of love, and compensates with the perverse but beguiling enchantments of commodified freedom.”
I don’t take that to mean that capitalism is the only political economic system that does or might align itself with abortion. The underlying problem is that materialist and ultimately utilitarian philosophies have dominated. Any political economic system that looses track of the value of humanity and human pursuits (spirituality, religion, culture etc.) and becomes focused on the material is likely headed to the same fate.
Paul in the GNW
Poli, I’ll try to break it down.
It seems to me that there are at least two versions of “autonomy” or “liberty” that both, in their own way, support legalized abortion.
1. Autonomy or liberty as freedom from governmental regulation. This notion of autonomy is present in capitalism and in the Anarchy FAQ to which Michael I.’s site links. So to that extent, I grasp the point that the ideology behind capitalism and legalized abortion share something in common, although this does NOT prove that fighting capitalism would do anything whatsoever to fight abortion (as McCarraher opportunistically claims).
2. Autonomy or liberty as freedom from the vicissitudes of life. This notion is quite common in the arguments of liberals/socialists, who argue quite vociferously that it’s heartless to allow people to be thrown to the wolves just because they lost a job, or health insurance, or because they became too old to work, etc.
Instead, positive liberty (think Isaiah Berlin) requires that the government aid people in being free from the limitations of life, so that they will have the personal freedom to seek self-fulfillment. This notion of liberty or autonomy bears fruit in the idea that women shouldn’t be bound by the chance circumstance of having become pregnant, and indeed, the government should help them pay for an abortion (as the Democratic platform says) so that they can have more positive liberty and autonomy in their personal lives.
If you have a response, try to be concrete and clear.
he concludes that term “autonomy” in its socio-political context is univocal (the word refers or signifies one single concept), so when he sees it used, he disregards the actual contexts and substitutes uniformly the same definition (he thinks “autonomy” means the same thing in all contexts)
To the extent that I can perceive anything meaningful in your claim here, you should be making the exact same criticism of McCarraher. He seems to think that the term “choice” is univocal, and that whenever he sees the word “choice” used to discuss capitalism, it means the same thing as when used to discuss abortion. That’s precisely what I’ve been trying to get across here. If the “choice” or “autonomy” in capitalism can be automatically assumed to be the same as the “choice” or “autonomy” of the abortion context, the exact same thing could be said of the “choice” or “autonomy” in the socialist context — which is why it doesn’t make sense for McCarraher to pretend that capitalism is uniquely to blame here, rather than deeper philosophical assumptions that would affect any economic system on the table today.
S.B.,
Fear not; I’ve been put in moderation numerous times here.
But it touches my heart that you are so concerned with my civility. I’ll try harder.
Priests that abuse consciences just have recently hit a raw nerve.
Maybe you can say a few prayers for my inner peace.
Well, S.B., we have made some progress here (and I will be as clear as I can be). Your notion of personal autonomy as either 1. freedom from governmental restraint; 2. freedom from vicissitudes is very different from the sort of personal autonomy that founds capitalist ideology (a la Locke, Hume, Smith). Your two descriptions are rather superficial in terms of understanding Enlightenment autonomy. They convey a rather anemic freedom from restraint, presenting a pure undergoing (passivity) rather than the dynamic conception of liberty and autonomy (difference concepts) that entail freedom originating within (an actual or “doing” freedom) that has a counterpart in freedom from restraint (a passive or “undergoing” freedom). Your conceptions of autonomy are certainly worth discussing, but just not here in this thread.
The reason I say this is because the original quote is discussing the Enlightenment form of autonomy, which originates not in freedom from restraint, but in the self-determining principle of human willing and doing. It is out of this context (or ethos) that the trajectories of capitalism and the particular forms of autonomy, freedom, and choice emerge. Hence, McCarraher, Ratzinger, John Paul II, Barrett, and Schindler (among many others) see the morally abhorrent applications of freedom (e.g., legality of abortion) extending from the Enlightenment conception of freedom.
It’s a lot of reading and thinking to do, but believe me it will open entirely new horizons of thought to you.
philosophical assumptions that would affect any economic system on the table today.
As I’ve said countless times, your assumption is that “any economic system” on the table today 1. stems from a common tradition; 2. works with commensurate concepts to other systems. Hence, I recommended reading MacIntyre specifically (among others) in order to see how this assumption is false. You seem to be willing to take my word on this, so I’ve been trying to refer you to the scholarly literature on the matter.
But those deeper philosophical assumptions, as I said, seem to underlie just about any form of government or economy that is on the table today. Do you agree or disagree? Unless McCarraher is suggesting that the alternative to capitalism would be a return to medieval feudalism, or maybe a return to hunter-gatherer society, I’m not sure how it’s relevant to claim that opposing capitalism would be a solution. (Actually, McCarraher is a Marxist, and my guess is that Marxists don’t usually think it’s bad for people to have a “self-determining principle of human willing and doing.”)
I see we cross-posted. I’ve read McIntyre’s “After Virtue,” but you’ll have to remind me of why it’s relevant to the claim that opposing capitalism would be of assistance in opposing abortion.
It’s true that rhetoric involving choice is often made in support of abortion and in support of free markets. I would note, however, that
1) such rhetoric is hardly limited to such cases, and is at least as prevalent when it comes to things like freedom of speech, religious liberty, and democratic governance generally.
2) appeals to choice are hardly the only justifications given for markets and/or abortion.
Sometimes they are; sometimes not. Capitalism, for example, is often justified in terms of the increased standard of living that it provides. Likewise, legal abortion is often defended in terms of its consequences (preventing back-alley abortions, or slowing population growth, or improving the status of women) that don’t directly invoke the value of choice or autonomy. My guess is that it is these sorts of arguments, and not any appeals to choice, that are behind most support for free markets and legal abortion.
3) At least in modern day America, those who favor abortion rights tend to have more hostile views towards free markets than do those who oppose such rights, and visa versa, suggesting that the relationship, if any, between appeals to choice in the two cases is far from straightforward.
Blackadder’s point 1 gets at something that bothers me here, that no one else so far has noticed. McCarraher’s argument boils down to:
1. Capitalism and abortion both depend on the notion of “choice.”
2. Therefore, they both must be resisted.
But the same argument could made about any number of things:
1. Freedom of speech, and religious freedom, and the freedom to wear clothing of your choice, and the freedom to live in housing not assigned by the state, and the freedom to have a blog, and abortion all depend on the notion of choice.
2. Therefore, they all must be resisted.
But those deeper philosophical assumptions, as I said, seem to underlie just about any form of government or economy that is on the table today.
The philosophical assumptions of capitalism, socialism, anarchism, etc. are all the same?? Seriously??
Perhaps in the overlapping phenomenon of state capitalism, american style capitalism and anarcho-capitalism/liberatrianism, you might have a point. But otherwise, I think you’re wrong.
McCarraher’s argument boils down to:
1. Capitalism and abortion both depend on the notion of “choice.”
2. Therefore, they both must be resisted.
I don’t think this is a good summary of McCarraher’s argument at all.
I think the people who seem to “get” the McCarraher quote are familiar with the ideas he is critiquing. SB, you don’t seem to be as familiar. Try reading the entire essay to get a feel for what he is doing. Otherwise we will continue to talk past one another:
http://ethicscenter.nd.edu/archives/documents/McCarraher.pdf
(PDF)
Turns out it was a good idea when various totaliarians got rid of college professors first :) Reminds me of something I heard yesterday (might have been on Dexter). A black woman says that paying for college is ‘paying for white people reading to other white people. I read for myself and save the money.” Much wankery about nothing.
The philosophical assumptions of capitalism, socialism, anarchism, etc. are all the same?? Seriously??
No, not all the philosophical assumptions. Just the one that Poli identified, i.e., the (extremely vague and abstract) belief in the human capacity to will and do things. Indeed, I find it hard to imagine a system of government that did not somehow assume that human beings are able to will and do things.
Thanks for the link to McCarraher’s essay, although I find myself a bit allergic to his style of using colorful but quite overdrawn rhetoric in place of spinning out a precise argument based on empirical reality (rather than mostly strawmen).
The demonization of the “corporation” in particular seems very sophomoric. “Corporation” is just a term for one or more people who have gotten together and are making some product or service that other people want to buy. Yes, some corporations make bad stuff (given that humanity is sinful and people often have an appetite for buying bad stuff).
But, wouldn’t you know it, the story is more complicated than that, because not everything about humanity is depraved (I’m not a Calvinist). Thus, lots of people like to buy good and useful things, and corporations have filled that need. Thus, lots of corporations make good and useful stuff (like the paper and the typewriter on which McCarraher typed his essay, or the water filter that keeps people from getting sick, or the antibiotic that cures an otherwise fatal infection, or any number of other things). McCarraher’s depiction of corporations is so ideologically-driven and one-sided that I read it not to be informed but amused.
But those deeper philosophical assumptions, as I said, seem to underlie just about any form of government or economy that is on the table today. Do you agree or disagree?
Sorry, I’ve been out this evening. Do I agree with this statement? No. The Enlightenment trajectory, which I describe here (I notice you make no mention of having read my analysis) and which gives rise to Western democratic liberalism/capitalism runs through Locke, Hume, Smith, and Mill (among other interlocutors). This would be the underlying tradition to which I refer. Marx defines himself against this tradition, but his reductionism keeps him within the Hume/Kant/Hegel matrix, maintaining a link with liberalism despite his attempt to excoriate it from German thought. During this same time, there are lines of unMarxist socialism, monarchist/constitutional hybrids, and the Thomistic traditions. The first and the last are very alive today, despite their many integrated instantiations.
You allude to some all embracing philosophical foundation to all forms of government in the present age. Of course this wrong, whether or not you are actually claiming this. And if you are, perhaps you can sketch this foundation and its line as I have with respect to what I (and many other contemporaries to whom I have referred) have narrowed to the liberal democratic paradigm.
Good night, all!
I have read it, and I read your posts, and I’m still think we’re (you’re) getting completely lost in the weeds here. What does any of this have to do with the question on the table, i.e., whether capitalism in and of itself has any greater connection to the legalization of abortion, as compared to any other system of government/economy?
Translation: “To prevent abortion, vote for the Marxist”
1. Freedom of speech, and religious freedom, and the freedom to wear clothing of your choice, and the freedom to live in housing not assigned by the state, and the freedom to have a blog, and abortion all depend on the notion of choice.
2. Therefore, they all must be resisted.
It isn’t that they all must be resisted. It is that their self-justification – they are freedoms, and therefore they are good – must be resisted.
I’m not sure if this echoes Poli’s line of thought or not, nor if it addresses SB’s concerns, but I’m going to offer a brief thought nonetheless,
It does seem to me that the roots of modern capitalism and the roots of the abortion rights mentality are found in the broad cultural current of modernity, born proximately out of the Enlightenment and remotely out of those darn Franciscan theologians of high (yes, I’m talking about you, Bl. Duns Scotus) and late (everyone’s favorite [but justified] pinata, William of Ockham) medieval scholasticism. And it’s also the case that the major opponents of democratic capitalism in late modernity (fascism & communism) are likewise born out of the same deep cultural current, despite the obvious oppositions at other levels.
Also relevant here is Pinckaers’ analysis of “freedom of indifference” and “freedom for excellence”… it’s the former which typifies the contemporary understanding of freedom, at least in the West. But it’s deficient, at least with regard to the latter.
What’s needed is a development of capitalism which roots it in a more authentic philosophical (and theological) anthropology… (cf. JPII).
What’s needed is a development of capitalism which roots it in a more authentic philosophical (and theological) anthropology… (cf. JPII).
Nice on paper. Really nice idea. Good luck w/ it in reality, though.
I know, Michael, but I don’t see a workable alternative. (FWIW, I consider distributism to be capitalism w/ a more authentic anthropology, but it still needs to be made workable.)
Chris,
While Distributists will sometimes use “capitalism” to describe themselves, its in an ancillary way. Distributism is actually a “third way” it is neither capitalism or socialism, not just a “blending” of the two. Its a different animal all together.
[...] as by contemporary proponents like Pope Benedict XVI (see John Allen) and Eugene McCarraher (see Vox Nova); but see also Mark and Louise Zwick, Stephen Hand (whom I deeply admire, and hope and pray may [...]