Survey: Plurality of Americans believe capitalism at odds with Christian values

Public Religion Research Institute: Survey: Plurality of Americans believe capitalism at odds with Christian values

The new PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey was conducted by Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with Religion News Service amidst contentious budget negotiations in Congress.

Ambivalence about Compatibility of Capitalism and Christianity

Overall more Americans believe that Christian values are at odds with capitalism and the free market than believe they are compatible. This pattern also holds among Christians. Among Christians in the U.S., only 38% believe capitalism and the free market are consistent with Christian values while 46% believe the two are at odds. Religiously unaffiliated Americans look similar to the general population and to Christian Americans, with a plurality (40%) saying capitalism is at odds with Christian values, compared to 32% who say they are compatible; 14% say they do not know. There are significant differences by gender, party and income.

• For instance, half (50%) of women believe that capitalism and Christian values are at odds, compared to 37% of men.
• A majority (53%) of Democrats believe that capitalism and Christian values are at odds compared to 26% who believe they are compatible. Among Republicans, only 37% say Christian values and capitalism are at odds, and nearly half (46%) say the two are compatible. Among Americans who identify with the Tea Party, a solid majority (56%) say that capitalism is consistent with Christian values; only 35% believe they are at odds.
• Nearly half (46%) of Americans with household incomes of $100,000 a year or more believe that capitalism is consistent with Christian values, compared to only 23% of those with household incomes of $30,000 a year or less. …

Of course, the critical question here is, “What do you mean by capitalism?” As it is asked here, the survey question is as much about what meaning people give to the word as it is about what they think about economic alternatives.

I have little doubt that if we were to do focus groups, we would find that what people object to is greed, selfishness (frequently misunderstood as a synonym for “self-interest”), and predatory corporate entities … stereotypes associated with capitalism reinforced by academia (particularly in the social sciences and theology), by Hollywood, and positively reinforced by Ayn Rand devotees (including some who work in economic institutions.) Rodney Stark offers some helpful insight into the idea of capitalism in his book, The Victory of Reason:

Several thousand books have been written about capitalism, but very few authors explain what they mean by the term. This is not because no definition is needed; it is because capitalism is very difficult to define, having originated not as an economic concept but as a pejorative term first used by nineteenth-century leftists to condemn wealth and privilege. Adapting the term for serious analysis is a bit like trying to make a social scientific concept out of “reactionary pig.” Even so, no one has dealt with the development of the concept of capitalism and its elusive meanings so well as Ferdnand Braudel. The term “capital” came into use in the fourteenth century to identify funds having the capacity to return income, rather than simply being of consumable value. Thus, in the early usage, “capitalism” referred to the use of wealth (or money) to earn wealth (or money). …

I’ll insert here that elsewhere I’ve read that “capital” comes from the Latin caput, meaning “head.” It is about a “head” in that we talk about a “head of cattle.” A cow can be consumed for meat and its hide. It can alternatively be preserved as a productive source of milk, fertilizer, or more cattle. Continuing …

…Put another way, the word capitalism implied using wealth to provide income with the intention that the initial value of the wealth would not be reduced, as with money lent at interest. It is investment, the systematic risking of wealth in pursuit of gain, that distinguishes the capitalist from those who merely exact their wealth through rents, taxes, conquest, or banditry. But in addition to being investors, capitalists usually take a more active role in their enterprises as compared with a pure investor such as moneylender. That is, capitalists tend to invest in productive activities whereby new wealth is created. Moreover, capital (or wealth) is not merely money – which is why some prefer the term “capital goods.” Factories, land, ships, mines and warehouses all are obvious capital goods. But it is equally true that for a peasant a cleared plot of ground, tools, and an ox are capital goods in that they can be used  to create additional wealth (such as foodstuffs). The same could be said of the spear or club of the Stone Age hunter or the basket carried by his wife when she went gathering. So if we don’t want to equate capitalism with any and all human activity, the definition must be narrowed. The term “capitalism” implies some degree of management, or supervising activities (as opposed simply to performing them); and these activities involve commercial complexity, duration, and planning, as well as a certain degree of autonomy in selecting opportunities and directing activities. But even after sketching these many aspects involved in capitalism, Braudel chose not commit himself to an explicit definition.

Although I am fully aware that is might be good strategy to let readers supply their own meaning of “capitalism,” it seems irresponsible to base and extended analysis on an undefined term. Therefore: Capitalism is an economic system wherein privately owned, relatively well organized, and stable firms pursue complex commercial activities within a relatively free (unregulated) market, taking systematic, long-term approach to investing (directly or indirectly) in productive activities involving a hired workforce, and guided by anticipated and actual returns. …

Consistent with this definition, everyone writing on capitalism (whether or not they actually define the term) accepts that it rests upon free markets, secure property rights, and free (uncoerced) labor. … (55-57)

My guess is that if you offered something along the definition that Stark offers, without using the loaded term “capitalism,” you would find far fewer negative reactions to “capitalism.”

Joseph Sunde asks some good questions over at Common Sense Concept. If this many Christians are opposed to capitalism, why have they not left their comfy middle-class existence, with climate-controlled homes, cellphones and computers, college education, IRAs and 401Ks, etc., for the commune? My sense is that it is because the word “capitalism” is a Rorschach inkblot onto which they throw everything they dislike about modern economic existence.