On this, the feast of Saint John Paul II, we recall his opposition to the economic system we call “capitalism.” This opposition is often denied, usually in order to fit the Pope into the character of an anti-communist (which he was) who merely critiqued the “excesses” of capitalism, easing the consciences of Catholics who live in capitalist states.
It is true that the holy Saint nuanced his opposition by describing an “acceptable” capitalism:
[C]an it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? […] If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy,” “market economy” or simply “free economy.” (Centesimus Annus 42)
These are the kindest words John Paul ever grants capitalism, and they are couched within a hesitation that a “capitalism” so kindly described should really be called something else. This hesitation makes sense: “Capitalism” reduced to recognition of business, markets, personal creativity, and the responsible use of private property is a reduction of what capitalism usually means to the good things that one rather hopes from capitalist societies. If you ask what “capitalism” means, its cheerleaders inevitably say something like: “it means free markets,“ or, more earnestly, “it means the government doesn’t get to interfere with business.” But this is precisely the kind of capitalism that the Pope opposes:
But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. (Centesimus Annus 42)
The Pope advocates that economic activity be strongly regulated, and orientated, by political power (by a “juridical framework”), towards service. A certain amount of innocence and honesty is necessary to shake the idea of a pro-capitalist Pope: If I were to tell anyone, “I work within an economic sector circumscribed by a strong juridical framework which places my economic activity at the service of all of humanity’s freedom to be good and holy,” no one in his right mind would say, “Ah, you are speaking, of course, about capitalism.”
The Pope made it clear, as often as he was able, that the repudiation of Communism did not mean a valorizing of capitalism:
The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing [poverty] in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces. (Centesimus Annus 42)
The blind trust of market forces (which act as “forces” only in and through human beings choosing to act by the open-ended desire for profit, i.e. greedily) is an evil and ineffective way to deal with poverty. But is this not the prototypically capitalist solution to any social problem—to let the market work? It’s odd, then, that the Pope would be called a champion of the free market by virtue of his anti-Communism. In fact, John Paul is anti-communist precisely insofar as communism leads to the same results as capitalism. He critiques the suppression of initiative typical of socialist regimes in just this manner:
It should be noted that in today's world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed…In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only "ordering" and "decision-making" body — if not also the "owner"— of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 15)
Communism is bad because it leads to a situation in which persons do not own, order, or decide in regards to the means of production, but remain subservient to a bureaucratic apparatus — just like in capitalism. In fact, the sharpest slap the Pope can think to swing at socialism is to call it “State capitalism”:
In this sense, it is right to speak of a struggle against an economic system, if the latter is understood as a method of upholding the absolute predominance of capital, the possession of the means of production and of the land, in contrast to the free and personal nature of human work. In the struggle against such a system, what is being proposed as an alternative is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be State capitalism, but rather a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation. Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied. (Centesimus Annus 35)
For Pope John Paul II, capitalism is the Bad Guy, and communism is the bad reaction to the Bad Guy. Indeed, the Pope is prone to seeing socialism and capitalism as two equally evil departures from the truth of the Catholic faith:
In the West there exists a system which is historically inspired by the principles of the liberal capitalism which developed with industrialization during the last century. In the East there exists a system inspired by the Marxist collectivism which sprang from an interpretation of the condition of the proletarian classes made in the light of a particular reading of history. Each of the two ideologies, on the basis of two very different visions of man and of his freedom and social role, has proposed and still promotes, on the economic level, antithetical forms of the organization of labor and of the structures of ownership, especially with regard to the so-called means of production.
Both capitalism and “Marxist collectivism” imagine economics as a science, that is, as a description of human behavior that presumes, as a law, that human beings only ever work in their material self-interest. (One sees the ingestion of this scientific mentality in the American business owner who does not want to betray his countrymen and employ laborers in South America at unjust wages, but simply must, because the law of the profit-motive forces his hand). Against this view, Pope John Paul prescribes the Church’s social doctrine, not as a descriptive science, but a moral theology—a science of the right thing to do, a study of how to act according to the nature of the person as revealed in Christ:
The Church's social doctrine is not a "third way" between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own. Nor is it an ideology, but rather the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society and in the international order, in the light of faith and of the Church's tradition. Its main aim is to interpret these realities, determining their conformity with or divergence from the lines of the Gospel teaching on man and his vocation, a vocation which is at once earthly and transcendent; its aim is thus to guide Christian behavior. It therefore belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology. (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 41)
The Pope also condemns the specific errors of capitalism, under the title of “liberalism,” that ideology, doctrine, and spiritual condition that justifies and makes capitalism possible, citing at length his predecessor Pope Paul VI with approval:
[C]ertain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.
This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "international imperialism of money."
Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (Populorum Progressio 26)
It is often argued that the Popes of the Church opposed “early capitalism,” with its factory horrors and child abuse, but have since approved of capitalism in its current, more humane form. While it is true that the Pope’s have always worked to affirm what moralizations and improvements the nations have managed to inject into their capitalist class, this affirmation does not amount to a support of capitalism. Quite the opposite: Pope John Paul II criticizes the shell game by which capitalists ship “early capitalism” to the third world, improving the working conditions of their own country at the expense of poorer countries. More importantly, he argues that the true evil of capitalism is present in the commodification of labor, however pleasantly performed:
For certain supporters of such ideas, work was understood and treated as a sort of “merchandise” that the worker—especially the industrial worker—sells to the employer, who at the same time is the possessor of the capital, that is to say, of all the working tools and means that make production possible. This way of looking at work was widespread especially in the first half of the nineteenth century. Since then, explicit expressions of this sort have almost disappeared, and have given way to more human ways of thinking about work and evaluating it. The interaction between the worker and the tools and means of production has given rise to the development of various forms of capitalism—parallel with various forms of collectivism—into which other socioeconomic elements have entered as a consequence of new concrete circumstances, of the activity of workers’ associations and public authorities, and of the emergence of large transnational enterprises. Nevertheless, the danger of treating work as a special kind of “merchandise”, or as an impersonal “force” needed for production (the expression “workforce” is in fact in common use) always exists, especially when the whole way of looking at the question of economics is marked by the premises of materialistic economism…
In all cases of this sort, in every social situation of this type, there is a confusion or even a reversal of the order laid down from the beginning by the words of the Book of Genesis: man is treated as an instrument of production, whereas he—he alone, independently of the work he does—ought to be treated as the effective subject of work and its true maker and creator. Precisely this reversal of order, whatever the programme or name under which it occurs, should rightly be called “capitalism”—in the sense more fully explained below. Everybody knows that capitalism has a definite historical meaning as a system, an economic and social system, opposed to “socialism” or “communism”. But in the light of the analysis of the fundamental reality of the whole economic process—first and foremost of the production structure that work is—it should be recognized that the error of early capitalism can be repeated wherever man is in a way treated on the same level as the whole complex of the material means of production, as an instrument and not in accordance with the true dignity of his work—that is to say, where he is not treated as subject and maker, and for this very reason as the true purpose of the whole process of production. (Laborem Exercens 7)
Capitalism is predicated on a view of labor as a commodity for sale. It receives papal condemnation, whatever guise it takes. Catholics need feel no allegiance to capitalism, a system of wealth accumulation which privileges the powerful and restricts ownership of the means of production into the hands of a very few people. They certainly need not lend their support to it by identifying “capitalism” with “a lack of unnecessary State interference,” which is a banal and self-evident positive good that can be easily attained without the primary doctrines of capitalist economics (the profit-motive, individualism, and the absolute right to private property) nor the primary social situation of non-ownership (rent) which characterizes capitalist states. Perhaps most of all, they need not mistake opposition to socialism as the support of capitalism. Saint John Paul II made none of these mistakes, proclaiming, simply, that “it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called ‘Real Socialism’ leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization,” advocating, instead, that we be good and just and holy in all our work and wealth.
As we build up Catholic societies out of the ruins of our liberal capitalist states, let us take this mighty destroyer of capitalism, Pope Saint John Paul II, as our patron and friend.