Does Wealth=Manure?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I just read a quote from Walter Rauschenbusch in his "Social Gospel (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/rausch-socialgospel.html)" about wealth.

Wealth…is to a nation what manure is to a farm. If the farmer spreads it evenly over the soil, it will enrich the whole. If he should leave it in heaps, the land would be impoverished and under the heaps the vegetation would be killed.

I think it's an imperfect analogy. Yes, too much concentration of wealth is bad. But trying to spread it evenly can be so destructive to wealth that the vegetation will also be killed.

And this begs the question of what is wealth relative to vegetation? Isn't wealth creation something good so long as it is regulated carefully and shared?

Rauschenbusch is too manicheistic and perfectionistic. He describes commercialization as a sin. The choice is between competition versus cooperation. We must have economic democracy so we can have political democracy. We must have the wholesome solidarity of the home or the immoral chaos of a competitive war of all against all. He frames the matter of the capture of the gov't and its liberation from "corruption" as necessary to keep the US from failing like the Roman Empire did.

It's little wonder that Liberalism faded in the US if it's official ideology was so far from the actual practice of the Democratic machine.

And it's little wonder that such strong religious language used for partisan purposes has helped to make liberal a swear word among many religious conservatives and led for the Social Gospel movement to become strongly villified, not long after its beginnings.

I also get a bit upset that Rauschenbusch writes this like a sermon without footnotes or sources. I don't see why being a "man of God" lets you be sloppy like that and shield what you are saying from critique.
dlw

[Conductor42]

Are you looking for an economic/political response, or a theological response?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Are you looking for an economic/political response, or a theological response?

Both would be preferable.

I don't think "thus sayeth the Lord" on what changes were needed was appropriate, even if he was right on how things were bad and had gotten worse than they were before...

I also think he was right about the need to fear the not-so-democratic spirit of Capitalism infecting Xty, which, believe it or not, does have a decentralizing spirt by virtue of its emphasis on Christ and how Christ is still present among us through the Holy Spirit...
dlw

[Conductor42]

Before I reply to the main article, I have to reply to your last comment about Capitalism.

Capitalism is not anti-democratic.

Capitalism, in its purest sense, is about freedom. The freedom to make your own choices, and not be dictated by the whims of some facist government.

It is only when Buisness is tied to government (as opposed to capitalism, in which there is no government involvement) and the buisnesses abuse that power - that is when people mistakenly blame "capitalism" for problems.

And I think that is the same mistake you are making now.

Capitalism is not to blame for your problems.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Before I reply to the main article, I have to reply to your last comment about Capitalism.

Capitalism is not anti-democratic.

Capitalism, in its purest sense, is about freedom. The freedom to make your own choices, and not be dictated by the whims of some facist government.

Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow. All property-right def'ns require both freedoms for party A and duties for party B.

It's not like there is a self-evident Capitalism that will give way to fascism if it's not held to...


It is only when Buisness is tied to government (as opposed to capitalism, in which there is no government involvement) and the buisnesses abuse that power - that is when people mistakenly blame "capitalism" for problems.

Business is always tied to gov't. It's inevitable and part of "capitalism".

How do you define when they "abuse their power".


And I think that is the same mistake you are making now.

Capitalism is not to blame for your problems.

Shucks, if only there was a BIG, then I wouldn't have to get a job...

dlw

[Epoetker]

Before I make any response, let's have a ground rule:

Capitalism is not a human-created system. It is a fact of life, and would exist under the harshest economic dictatorship. Wherever there are goods to be sold, and people willing to buy them, for money or other things, there exists capitalism, no matter how distorted.

Now, I particularly like GK Chesterton's formulation of the subject: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few." In essence, he's not asking for either a flat field of manure or a few huge piles, but many, many little piles.

Also, given the extremely large failure rate of startup businesses, (9 in 10 first year, 9 in 10 of those that succeeded during the third year,) and the success of so many who frankly aren't qualified to train dogs, much less men, it must be admitted that there is an element of luck or chance in business success that must be accounted for by any serious students of capitalism. Any serious student of American economic history will note that keeping those 98 out of 100 failures from souring themselves or others on the business creation game has been central to keeping a healthy economy.


And this begs the question of what is wealth relative to vegetation? Isn't wealth creation something good so long as it is regulated carefully and shared?

Wealth creation is something good (for a country or a person) as long as it is earned. If you can't tell your income to your co-workers, there's probably some unearned-ness there, though I can't and won't imagine how you'd regulate it. Society-wise, fools and their money can wreak great destruction, so it is in our interest to watch those with lots of money and little evidence of having done much to earn it like hawks. There are plenty of business ventures, for example, where no amount of money in the world can buy you in a share-you have to actually know the business of business running before you can even begin.


Rauschenbusch is too manicheistic and perfectionistic. He describes commercialization as a sin.

Commercialization is often a bad idea, most often because it's done too early and too hastily. 'Sin' is a strong word in some cases, but not as far as sacred things like sex and life are considered. I may even consider it a sin in reference to stories, given how I've seen a few horribly mangled on the transition from book to screen, but quibbles aside...


The choice is between competition versus cooperation. We must have economic democracy so we can have political democracy. We must have the wholesome solidarity of the home or the immoral chaos of a competitive war of all against all. He frames the matter of the capture of the gov't and its liberation from "corruption" as necessary to keep the US from failing like the Roman Empire did.

It's little wonder that Liberalism faded in the US if it's official ideology was so far from the actual practice of the Democratic machine.

I have found very little in that particular article in common with modern liberalism. I particularly like this one:

"Single cases of unhappiness are inevitable in our frail human life; but when there are millions of them, all running along well-defined grooves, reducible to certain laws, then this misery is not an individual, but a social matter, due to causes in the structure of our society and curable only by social reconstruction."


And it's little wonder that such strong religious language used for partisan purposes has helped to make liberal a swear word among many religious conservatives and led for the Social Gospel movement to become strongly villified, not long after its beginnings.

'Liberal' pretty much finds new ways to make itself a swear word every day. I hadn't heard head or tail of the Social Gospel when I started using 'liberal' derogatorily-Rush Limbaugh did it with about 3 hours of commentary on the Clinton administration. It was mainly the misuse of strong religious language that turned me off of liberals, in any case. The type of Biblical allusions used by this author are hardly the overstretched, out-of-context paeans I remember hearing beforehand, but lettered people were a bit more educated on Bible reading matters back then.


I also get a bit upset that Rauschenbusch writes this like a sermon without footnotes or sources. I don't see why being a "man of God" lets you be sloppy like that and shield what you are saying from critique.

Some preachers, believe it or not, give sermons without footnotes. And some writers might not exactly be writing for the academic audience. And most amazing of all, in an age where a much larger number of people were Christians, some people actually threw Biblical allusions around without quoting chapter and verse, because they were quite confident that most of the population would know the reference already!

And to speak with a complete lack of sarcasm, if you need footnotes to critique something, you need to increase your critiquing skills tremendously. If you cannot match the rhetoric of the 1920s, it's probably your own fault. The fact that it's leading you to discard an article that's quite astoundingly well-written based on ONE SINGLE METAPHOR is simply evidence of that narrowness of sight that careerism always brings.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Before I make any response, let's have a ground rule:

Capitalism is not a human-created system. It is a fact of life, and would exist under the harshest economic dictatorship. Wherever there are goods to be sold, and people willing to buy them, for money or other things, there exists capitalism, no matter how distorted.

nope. Capitalism is different from Feudalism, inasmuch as military might/Land ownership is not essential for having one's interests protected by the gov't. This more mercantile system tends to be more flexible and depends a good deal on the underlying dist'n of wealth and people's commitments to follow the rules of the game, including not stealing from others or cutting corners.

It is a fact that people will pursue their self-interests, but that no longer requires developing the same level of proficiency at hacking people to death.


Now, I particularly like GK Chesterton's formulation of the subject: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few." In essence, he's not asking for either a flat field of manure or a few huge piles, but many, many little piles.

sure, but keeping the separate piles playing nice is another matter, particularly when it comes to us with not too much beyond our own feces to build on....


Also, given the extremely large failure rate of startup businesses, (9 in 10 first year, 9 in 10 of those that succeeded during the third year,) and the success of so many who frankly aren't qualified to train dogs, much less men, it must be admitted that there is an element of luck or chance in business success that must be accounted for by any serious students of capitalism. Any serious student of American economic history will note that keeping those 98 out of 100 failures from souring themselves or others on the business creation game has been central to keeping a healthy economy.

There needs to be a net of some sort to foster innovation, the question is whether a net can be justified for the rest of us, who may or may not decide to start up a business, but do decide when and where to supply our labor.


Wealth creation is something good (for a country or a person) as long as it is earned. If you can't tell your income to your co-workers, there's probably some unearned-ness there, though I can't and won't imagine how you'd regulate it. Society-wise, fools and their money can wreak great destruction, so it is in our interest to watch those with lots of money and little evidence of having done much to earn it like hawks. There are plenty of business ventures, for example, where no amount of money in the world can buy you in a share-you have to actually know the business of business running before you can even begin.

Yeah, but if there is always uncertainty about what sells, it's harder to say what is earned, particularly given people's tendencies to prefer insurance-like reductions in risk.


Commercialization is often a bad idea, most often because it's done too early and too hastily. 'Sin' is a strong word in some cases, but not as far as sacred things like sex and life are considered. I may even consider it a sin in reference to stories, given how I've seen a few horribly mangled on the transition from book to screen, but quibbles aside...

Sure, money-making ventures often discount the future quite steeply.


I have found very little in that particular article in common with modern liberalism. I particularly like this one:

"Single cases of unhappiness are inevitable in our frail human life; but when there are millions of them, all running along well-defined grooves, reducible to certain laws, then this misery is not an individual, but a social matter, due to causes in the structure of our society and curable only by social reconstruction."

Yeah, that's a good quote.


'Liberal' pretty much finds new ways to make itself a swear word every day. I hadn't heard head or tail of the Social Gospel when I started using 'liberal' derogatorily-Rush Limbaugh did it with about 3 hours of commentary on the Clinton administration. It was mainly the misuse of strong religious language that turned me off of liberals, in any case. The type of Biblical allusions used by this author are hardly the overstretched, out-of-context paeans I remember hearing beforehand, but lettered people were a bit more educated on Bible reading matters back then.

Yeah, I think religious language gets misused quite often by politicos...


Some preachers, believe it or not, give sermons without footnotes. And some writers might not exactly be writing for the academic audience. And most amazing of all, in an age where a much larger number of people were Christians, some people actually threw Biblical allusions around without quoting chapter and verse, because they were quite confident that most of the population would know the reference already!

I agree, but I think that if you're arguing for a social gospel, you need to put your cards on the table and admit what you're drawing from as an exercise in humility. The original gospel writers may not have had to cite their sources, but we shd, since the canon is closed and I'm afraid that Rausch was still too much influenced by Marxism with his economic determinism.


And to speak with a complete lack of sarcasm, if you need footnotes to critique something, you need to increase your critiquing skills tremendously. If you cannot match the rhetoric of the 1920s, it's probably your own fault. The fact that it's leading you to discard an article that's quite astoundingly well-written based on ONE SINGLE METAPHOR is simply evidence of that narrowness of sight that careerism always brings.

No, I'm not discarding it, I'm critiquing it. I think that Rauschenbusch's vision was too idealistic. He didn't integrate the "social gospel" well enough with the personal salvation gospel and, as a result, many after him kept the social and left the gospel behind.

Thankyou for the feedback. I appreciate it.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I've been thinking about this some more and one of the concerns of Rauschenbusch was that the concentrated wealth in a capitalist society would create ideologies that would infiltrate Xty. He thought that it was necessary to deconcentrate wealth to prevent this from happening.

I think this is a valid concern, we do see too many, too individualistic Gospellers of Wealth, but I think it's even more important to focus on critical biblical realism as a hermeneutical principle and careful study of Church History for precedents, as the way to keep Xty from getting culturally captivated or the way out from being culturally captivated.

Now, not having too much of a concentration of wealth may matter for this in the first place from a practical standpoint wrt Academic freedom, but I think that if one is really committed to Biblical Realism then reducing Wealth Inequality shd have a secondary importance and be something we can reduce more in the long-run through strategic rule changes, rather than with dramatic short-run transfers.
dlw

[joel]

Yes, too much concentration of wealth is bad.
Why?



And this begs the question of what is wealth relative to vegetation? Isn't wealth creation something good so long as it is regulated carefully and shared?
Why should it be regulated? As far as sharing: voluntary sharing is very good. coercing people to share is evil.



The choice is between competition versus cooperation. That is a false dichotomy. If you were criticizing Rauschenbusch for that comment, then I agree with you.



Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow. All property-right def'ns require both freedoms for party A and duties for party B.I think that needs a small correction. A right does come with an obligation. If A has the right to some such property, then B has the obligation to not take it without A's permission. This is not really a limitation of B's freedom in the sense of limiting his rights, because B does not have a right to that property in the first place.



It's not like there is a self-evident Capitalism that will give way to fascism if it's not held to...
Yes, there is. Protect individual rights, or else individual rights will be violated.



Business is always tied to gov't. It's inevitable and part of "capitalism".
If the government restricted itself to protecting individual rights, then the businesses would be free to keep their nose out of government.



How do you define when they "abuse their power".
When they violate individual rights.

[joel]

Wealth creation is something good (for a country or a person) as long as it is earned.

There is no other kind of wealth creation. There are various other (mostly evil) means of wealth acquisition. But earning is the only kind of wealth creation.

[Hitch]

I've been thinking about this some more and one of the concerns of Rauschenbusch was that the concentrated wealth in a capitalist society would create ideologies that would infiltrate Xty. He thought that it was necessary to deconcentrate wealth to prevent this from happening.

I think this is a valid concern, we do see too many, too individualistic Gospellers of Wealth, but I think it's even more important to focus on critical biblical realism as a hermeneutical principle and careful study of Church History for precedents, as the way to keep Xty from getting culturally captivated or the way out from being culturally captivated.

Now, not having too much of a concentration of wealth may matter for this in the first place from a practical standpoint wrt Academic freedom, but I think that if one is really committed to Biblical Realism then reducing Wealth Inequality shd have a secondary importance and be something we can reduce more in the long-run through strategic rule changes, rather than with dramatic short-run transfers.
dlw
How does your version of strategic rule changes compare to the biblical values of private property?

[Conductor42]

How does your version of strategic rule changes compare to the biblical values of private property?
FYI, DLW has been gone from this site for a long time. Like a year. or more.