Nineteen eighty-two was not a happy year for freedom. A
severe and protracted recession gripped America. Many were
beginning to wonder if Ronald Reagan was going to be a one-termer.
Unemployment in Britain hit a postwar high. Across the Channel,
François Mitterrand was busy nationalizing banks and raising taxes.
Daniel Ortega’s Sandinistas were firmly in control in Nicaragua.
The Soviet grip on Eastern Europe seemed tighter than ever.
Solidarity appeared finished in the wake of General Jaruzelski’s
declaration of a “state of war” against his own country. In the
Middle East, Lebanon was descending into anarchy. And just to the
north-east, Syria’s president Hafez al-Assad — father of Bashar al-Assad — was ordering his
security-forces to level the town of Hama. Thousands subsequently
died. Some things never change.
Of course there was the occasional bright spot amidst the gloom.
Against all odds, Britain liberated the Falklands, thereby
precipitating the collapse of Argentina’s corrupt military junta.
Thirty years ago, however, another event occurred that would make a
profound long-term contribution to the struggle for freedom: the
1982 publication of Michael Novak’s magnum opus,
The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.
From a 2012 vantage point, it’s easy to forget just how radical
this book was. In penning the Spirit, Novak was the first
theologian to really make an in-depth moral, cultural, and
political case for the market economy in a systematic way.
Needless to say, Novak’s book generated fierce reactions from the
religious left. The opprobrium was probably heightened by the fact
that the Spirit confirmed what had become evident from the
mid-'70s onwards: that Novak was well on his way to abandoning his
previously left-wing positions.
Thirty years ago, however, many Christians — Protestant,
Catholic, Orthodox, clerical, and lay — were marching in precisely
the opposite direction to Novak. Theologians in the Americas and
Western Europe were still waxing lyrical about “dialogue” with
Marxism. The fight-back led by Blessed John Paul II and Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger against the doctrinal heresies and Marxist
analysis underlying liberation theology had only just begun.
At home, America’s Catholic bishops conference was issuing what
seemed to be an endless stream of commentaries about economic
subjects that invariably reflected a monotonously soft-left line.
Then in 1986, the bishops conference published Economic Justice
for All — a document whose 25th anniversary passed almost
unnoticed in 2011, and which bore all the hallmarks of the
influence of people who thought the “two Johns” (Rawls and Maynard
Keynes) had said all that ever needed to be said about justice and
the economy respectively.
Unlike Economic Justice, Novak’s Spirit
continues to provide inspiration today — something that hasn’t
been limited to Americans. Its samizdat translation and
publication by dissidents in Communist Poland in 1986 reflected the
fact that those who actually experienced real socialism in all its
deadening grayness not only knew that collectivism had failed; they
also understood there was no “third way.” At the same time,
Central-East Europeans weren’t impressed with merely utilitarian or
efficiency arguments for markets. They wanted to root free
economies in a wider and richer vision of the human person. Many of
them found what they were looking for in the Spirit.
Naturally some of Novak’s book has been superseded by events,
such as Communism’s defeat in Eastern Europe and the former USSR,
liberation theology’s virtual collapse throughout the Catholic
world, and the rise of new generations of bishops and priests who
know that economic policy is largely a matter of prudential
judgment for the laity. And yet the Spirit’s strengths
endure. These include a Catholic mind that takes seriously Adam
Smith’s economic and philosophical insights; the affirmation that
markets must be grounded upon particular moral, political, and
legal habits and institutions; the attention to how awareness of
the reality of sin should incubate us against economic utopianism;
and, perhaps above all, the sustained effort to locate democratic
capitalism within a vision of God and man, thereby giving it
genuine theological meaning.
All of these intellectual forays helped facilitate a serious
reconsideration of the moral merits of market economies by not only
Catholics but also other Christians. Many hitherto-prevailing
visions of capitalism, such as the thoroughly inadequate and
misleading conceptions promoted by Weber and Marx, suddenly seemed
very open to question. Across the world, books and articles began
appearing that engaged the ideas which Novak had articulated. In
retrospect, it’s difficult to dispute the trajectory between
particular themes contained within the Spirit and some of
the positive statements about the market economy found in John Paul
II’s 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. In fact the left
were the first to point this out!
But perhaps the Spirit’s most significant and
underestimated effect was upon thousands of business leaders and
entrepreneurs throughout the world. Novak had managed to put into
words something they instinctively knew: that their daily
labor was neither a mere necessary evil nor something intrinsically
immoral. Instead business could be understood as a vocans
ab Deus — a calling from God that allowed people
engaged in literally transforming the world to simultaneously
transform themselves in the direction of the good. In short, it
wasn’t just that, given the right settings, business and free
markets are the fastest ways to diminish poverty. It was also
possible to find a spark of the Divine in the very activity of
business itself.
Not surprisingly, Novak’s Spirit still attracts critics
today. Some on the left castigate it as an insidious effort to
sanctify an essentially immoral system. It also draws heat from
those inclined to romanticize a lost world of guilds or who persist
in promoting corporatist economic models in the mistaken belief
that these are the only economic visions which may be
advocated by faithful Christians.
If anything, however, the current trajectory of economic policy
in America and much of Western Europe tells us just how much we
need the insights of the Spirit and similar books today.
Even after the 2008 Great Recession, it isn’t hard to make the
economic case for markets. But by now, conservatives and free
marketers should have learned (but in many cases apparently
haven’t) that they must make stronger, more persuasive
moral arguments in debates about political economy instead
of treating such matters as “subjective,” “relative,” or
“unscientific.”
And this isn’t simply a matter of clever tactics in what will
surely be a ceaseless battle with those who put their faith in
top-down planning, social democracy, the welfare state, or
“hope-and-change” emotivism and wishful thinking. Morality
is as much part of the truth about reality as supply and
demand. The most insightful economists, ranging from Adam Smith to
Wilhelm Röpke, have always understood this.
And herein may lay The Spirit of Democratic
Capitalism’s long-term significance. It continues to ask
anyone who cares about liberty to look up and see that the truth
about man — economic, cultural, political, moral, and theological
— is by its very nature indivisible. We consequently
neglect any part of that truth at our peril.
Von Mises Jr| 8.15.12 @ 7:13AM
Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" teaches that central planning is not only inefficient, but that it necessitates government picking winners and losers. Milton Friedman lectured Phil Donohue, where do you find these government angels?
Guild socialism mentioned in the article was like serfdom itself a family inheritance. If you were eldest son of a Lord of an Estate, you inherited your father's property. Others did not inherit anything except the workers of the guild. If your father was a baker, you were a baker. If he was a blacksmith, so would you be a blacksmith. Others were restricted from baking or working in the blacksmith trade.
Today's liberal/progressives (isn't that a hoot that they would call themselves either liberal or progressive since they are diametrically opposed to classical liberalism and progressive thought) use the unions to consolidate power. If you do not think like a socialist, you will never make it through teacher's college. Not because it is difficult, but since you must mouth the platitudes to get a Degree. Construction and other unions kept blacks and Hispanics out of these trades for most of our history that makes it rather amazing that these groups would vote for Democrats and against their own interests. But propaganda works, as Goebbels illustrated.
The only moral system is capitalism. Everyone gets an even opportunity and you are rewarded for your effort. Socialism may work with angels, but like Friedman, I can't seem to find them in flesh and blood.
Christopher Chantrill | 8.15.12 @ 12:55PM
Yes, but Gregg didn't give us Novak's elevator story.
Briefly, Novak proposes that we think of society as three sectors, political, economic, and moral/cultural, and that there should be what I call a Greater Separation of Powers to prevent one sector from dominating the others. See Wikipedia for details.
Michele San Pietro| 8.15.12 @ 3:45PM
I think we should stop using the word "capitalism", which was invented by communists for their propaganda. Free market is the right word, in my opinion, and I am convinced a world without free market is unconceivable.
Hardcard| 8.15.12 @ 6:01PM
hmmmmm ! wikipedia for details I think not.
cicero| 8.15.12 @ 7:30PM
I, too, prefer the appelation, free market. Capitalism lends itself to ideological attack, because it lends itself to individual definition. the free market works. It was not America's ability to produce that has lead to its prosperity, but its ability to consume. Once the working man was given the freedon to exploit his own labor, and price it fairly, he was able to expend the fruits of such as he saw fit. He was able to purchase what he produced.
It was not the assembly line that produced the middle class, but the $5.00 day. One of the many problems we have today in figuring out where we are, and where we ought be going, is that we have become woefully ignorant of our own history. Whether this has been a programed ignorance or not is up to debate. Perhaps our educational system just failed us accidentally. We must get back to a point where our soft sciences are taught with the same rigor as our hardd sciences, and are worthy of the same respect.