The Ethics of Capitalism - Social Europe Journal

ers, employees or customers
they can help us, as competitors
they can harm us and put the
whole company at risk. Workers
and employees, even when
treated well, are still a ‘cost factor’.
And if they set up in business
on their own, they become
our competitors.
II. In the New Testament our
fellow man is not our competitor
but our ‘neighbour’. The ethical
code of the New Testament
revolves entirely around this
relationship with our ‘neighbour’.
Not because man is
intrinsically a social animal, but
because he is dependent on his
fellow men, and cannot live
without them, because this is
the relationship that shapes his
life. ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself.’ Asked the question
‘Who is my neighbour’,
Jesus replies by telling the parable
of the Good Samaritan. The
Samaritans were not Jews, but
despised foreigners. So our
neighbour is not necessarily our
biological brother or someone of
like mind, but the individual
who is most in need of our help
and care.
In his Letter to the Galatians,
Paul summarises the ethics of
Christian charity thus: ‘Bear ye
one another’s burdens, and so
fulfil the law of Christ.’ The
contrast with the capitalist
credo could not be more starkly
formulated. To the capitalist this
must appear nonsensical. How
can an economy even function,
let alone grow, if everyone is
intent on bearing the burdens of
others Surely it is much more
productive and cost-effective if
everyone looks out for himself
In capitalism everything has
its price. And that price is
determined by the law of sup-
ply and demand. Not so in the
New Testament. Jesus tells the
story of a ‘householder’ and
owner of a vineyard, who goes
out early in the morning to hire
labourers to work in his vineyard.
He promises them payment
of one denarius for the
day’s work – the sum that a
family needs to live on.
Throughout the day, until the
early evening, the householder
continues to hire more labourers
who are standing around
waiting for work. He says he
will give them ‘whatsoever is
right’. At the end of the day he
pays them all one denarius,
regardless of whether they have
worked for twelve hours or one
hour. This annoys the early
birds in particular. The householder
asks: ‘Why be jealous
because I am kind’. 2 Each
receives what he and his family
need. To give any less would be
mean. But this runs counter not
only to the rules of capitalism,
but also to the workers’ own
sense of justice.
For Erich Fromm, capitalism
is about having, whereas the
New Testament is about being.
There could hardly be two
value systems more diametrically
opposed than the capitalist
and the Jesuanic. Jesus even
rejects the notion of taking
thought for the morrow. The
birds of the air do not trouble
themselves about the future,
even less so the lilies of the
field: ‘Yet your heavenly Father
feedeth them.’
III. Right from the beginning,
the ethical radicalism of Jesus of
Nazareth was too much even for
the Christian churches. When
Christians became responsible
for a state church – and therefore
also for a state – compro-
mises were unavoidable. The
Church acquired power, it
became wealthy, it adopted a
strictly hierarchical structure;
orders were given and obeyed,
advancement and punishment
were meted out as the Church
saw fit, tithes were exacted, and
when it came to collecting them
from impoverished peasants,
charity was not the only motive
at work. It was only ever individuals
or monastic orders like
the Franciscans who made a
serious attempt to live out the
ethical principles of Jesus.
These principles were always
about the individual, not about
society and certainly not about
the state. It was fine for the
individual to try and live by the
precept that he should not take
thought for the morrow – or for
next year. But ruling a country
required people to do precisely
that. Gouverner, c’est prévoir.
The temporal authority, supported
by the Church, administered
justice and enforced the
laws of the land. People were
often hanged for minor offences
such as theft. This was far
removed from the Jesuanic system
of ethics: but then these
were matters for which the
Church was not directly responsible.
It simply tolerated – and
legitimised – what the ‘secular
arm’ deemed right. From this
flowed Luther’s doctrine of the
two kingdoms or realms.
When the Industrial
Revolution created the new
labouring class, first in Great
Britain and then in western and
central Europe, the churches’
response for a long time was to
focus on the needs of the individual.
The poor were given
alms, as they had been in the
time of Jesus. The church
authorities did not feel obliged
9 Social Europe Journal Summer 2009