Pope Francis I on the Autonomy of the Market

Yesterday, Pope Francis I reportedly blamed the "tyranny of capitalism for making people miserable."  

I imagine that some right-leaning Catholics will be quick to stress that the Pope isn't speaking ex cathedra (thus, believers are under no obligation to endorse the views he expressed in yesterday's address).  Others may suggest that his words were wretched out of context.  After all, the word "capitalism" appears nowhere in his address.  Arguably, though, that's just playing semantics; what the Pope refers to as the "absolute autonomy of markets" is what others prefer to call "capitalism", at least in its unrestrained form.  The libertarian must resist the temptation to counter that there aren't actual examples of absolutely autonomous markets; even if we grant that there aren't empirical cases of true, unfettered capitalism, the point is that the Pope evidently believes that it isn't fettered enough.

Those who suspect that the Pope is being misinterpreted should always go to the original source. Here's a snippet from yesterday's address that should lay these suspicions to rest:

While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good. A new, invisible and at times virtual, tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules. Moreover, indebtedness and credit distance countries from their real economy and citizens from their real buying power. Added to this, as if it were needed, is widespread corruption and selfish fiscal evasion which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The will to power and of possession has become limitless.

Whereas many on the right insist that only voluntary, charitable giving is what many ostensibly left-leaning Church hierarchs promote as solutions to poverty and inequality, it's noteworthy that the Pope explicitly recognizes the positive role that the State (or, "coercive giving", as many right-wing Catholics would have it) can play in rectifying socioeconomic injustice.  It also bears mentioning that this view does not set a new and dangerous precedent in Roman Catholic social teaching.  In a papal encyclical written over a century ago, Pope Leo XIII argued that:

It lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good (Rerum Novarum, 1891). 

Variants of Social Conservatism

7/8/12 Update
Communitarianism, as I define it, refers to a political ideology that’s at once economically progressive and socially conservative. As a consequence, I’ve drawn the ire of both left- and right-wingers (I’ve half-jokingly said on many occasions that it’s lonely to be a communitarian). In this post, I’m going to discuss the latter half of the equation. What, exactly, does it mean to be a “social conservative”? I’ve found it useful to distinguish among the following three types.

Libertarian Social Conservatism 

Similar to classical liberals like John Stuart Mill, libertarian social conservatives respect an individual’s right to live as ou wishes – even in ways they deem immoral - so long as ou doesn’t violate another’s right to do the same. Yet they often disagree with contemporary (especially secular) liberals on the relative importance of religious freedom. For instance, whereas today’s liberal is more likely to support legalizing same-sex marriage, a libertarian social conservative would oppose it on account of its negative implications for other widely-cherished rights, including religious ones. For example, a doctor might be sued for discrimination if she were to refuse, on religious grounds, to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple. The contemporary liberal is more likely to overlook or be apathetic about such infringements on religious (and, here in the U.S., constitutionally-protected) freedom. 

Public Good Social Conservatism 

Public good social conservatives will seek to impose moral standards on society when they believe that the violation of those standards undermines public order, public health, or the continuity of society (it must be admitted that these concepts are difficult to define). For example, some support tighter restrictions on divorce, given the negative effects it's argued to have on children and public order (e.g., in the form of higher crime rates). 

Authoritarian Social Conservatism

Authoritarian social conservatives are more concerned with the intrinsic moral character of an act than its effects on others’ rights or the public good, although they may certainly appeal to these effects in order to bolster their arguments. For them, the immorality of an act is, in itself, sufficient to warrant its legal prohibition. In practice, it’s difficult to identify a distinctively ASC position on a particular issue, as this variant of social conservatism seems to be distinguishable more by argumentative emphasis (i.e., more attention is directed to the inherent morality of an act than its supposed effects) than by anything ideological.

In the table below, I use the issue of pornography to illustrate the differences among these variants of social conservatism.

My Preferred Variant of Social Conservatism

Until recently, I’ve embraced a hybrid of the libertarian and public good types. I called this fourth variant consequentialist social conservatism because it is more concerned with the consequences of an act than its intrinsic moral quality. However, I’ve come to realize that I don’t necessarily oppose, on principle, the legal imposition of one’s values on another.  Rather, my opposition stems from the belief (correct or not) that attempts to legislate morality, for its own sake, aren’t likely to succeed.  But there’s no basis for denying the possibility that such legislation will bear fruit.  And given that spiritual consequences are infinitely more important than worldly ones, I must confess that I am (in theory, at least) sympathetic to authoritarian social conservatism; however unpopular this may be in our live-and-let-live political culture.

*Regarding the table above, I'm only speaking hypothetically here. While some scholars posit such negative effects of pornography consumption, others are skeptical.

What is Communitarianism?

Someone recently commented on a post of mine and inquired on my definition of communitarianism, a political ideology with which I have identified myself:

I would be interested in knowing how you do define "communitarianism", since there seem to be a lot of very strange definitions of it floating about. For what it's worth, you can see what I think it means here Notes from underground: Search results for communitarianism and hereLove is the measure: Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker | Khanya

To be sure, communitarianism has been defined in various ways. As I wrote in that post, I use the term to describe “a political ideology that’s at once economically progressive and socially conservative." This is the meaning I was first introduced to. Communitarianism, so defined, is thus similar to Christian democracy, or what some have called “progressive conservatism”. It is tempting to describe my worldview as “Amiricism” since it doesn’t fit neatly into any extant ideological box (then again, the free-thinker’s ideology rarely does). But that would make me look like a narcissist.

Perhaps my usage of communitarianism diverges from that of my predecessors (although it’s difficult to tell in the case of Dorothy Day - her particular use of the term, at least in the quoted excerpt, is quite vague), much like other ideological terms (e.g., “liberal” or “libertarian”) have considerably changed in meaning over time. Today, efforts are underway to redefine British conservatism to make it more accepting of same-sex marriage rights. As Prime Minister, David Cameron, recently put it, “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.’’

Of course, one shouldn’t unilaterally redefine an ideology just for the fun of it. That said, what Chomsky says of anarchism is true of communitarianism: nobody owns the term.