The Remedy Is a Dose of Apathy

“When we truly discover how to love our neighbor as our self, capitalism will not be possible and Marxism will not be necessary.” — Shane Claiborne

This little quote has given me countless hours of thought-grief. I finally figured out what irks me about it. 

Let’s start with meanings. Google Dictionary defines “capitalism” as: An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

I take Marxism to mean communism, because Marx saw communism as the ideal state for society. Google Dictionary tells us “communism” means: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

What puzzles me most is the notion that in a world governed by the golden rule, capitalism will not be possible, whereas Marxism will not be necessary. I would understand if Claiborne stated that neither capitalism nor Marxism would be necessary. James Madison made that point in Federalist #51 when he said, “If men were angels, government would not be necessary.” For now, I defer to Madison’s argument on that point.

But how does loving others as ourselves make it impossible to live in a society where trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit? I don’t think it does. The definition of profit can mean both financial advantage, or it can simply mean advantage or benefit. It seems to me that a “Golden Rule World” is one where the owners of private property are always willing to give or trade that property to those who need it. But inherent in the ability to give and trade property is the ownership, or at least stewardship, of that property. Contrary to Claiborne’s position, I think a Golden Rule World is only a possibility in a capitalist society where individuals can exercise ownership or stewardship over goods. 

I see at least two ways to reach Claiborne’s conclusion: (1) All trading is a zero-sum game. In other words, no trade results in profit. Thus, assuming all goods in a Golden Rule World were allocated to the people who need them most, profit would be impossible. I do not buy the premise that all trading is a zero-sum game, so this fails to convince me. (2) Profit cannot be removed from the notion of financial advantage, and financial advantage cannot be removed from a sense of greed. Greed implies selfishness and a departure from loving your neighbor as yourself. Here, profit is deductively both inextricable from capitalism and in opposition to the golden rule, so they cannot coexist. This argument is unpersuasive because I disagree with both the premises that profit means only financial gain and that financial gain is inherently greedy.

And that is what irks me about this quote.