The criticism of income
inequality that Thomas Piketty exposes in his bestselling “Capital in the 21st
Century” is not very different from Pope Francis’s views on capitalism in his
apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium” last year.
The Financial Times is trying to demonstrate that the
French economist’s theory is
wrong, and Rush Limbaugh, among other conservatives, has accused both men of Marxism, which for him is synonymous with being wrong, of course. But being labeled a Marxist is not
offensive anymore; it’s simply a sign that Marx has returned from the
remnants of communism to invite academics, activists, and even
clerics to seek in his thought solutions to the ongoing global recession.
Even though Piketty and the
Pope (formerly Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergolio) have denied any interest or faith in Marxism, they will not be forgiven anytime
soon because anyone who points out capitalism’s social flaws pulls a fire alarm
in our state of exception.
The good aspect of this
alarm is that it indirectly gathers together people concerned with such vital
matters as the distribution of wealth, health and education, as demonstrated by UNASUR and the Occupy Movement.
The Pope has called for
redistribution, and Piketty has suggested a way that this can be implemented
through a progressive global tax on capital or wealth. And has also
(indirectly) become the papal economist. In order to explain why the French
economist’s solution is appropriate for the pope’s concerns, let’s quickly
recall both theses.
The most interesting feature
of “Evangelii Gaudium” is not that the Pope calls for a more
equitable distribution of wealth but rather that he makes this call in the
spirit of Gustavo Gutiérrez’s liberation theology.
According to Pope Francis, a “financial
reform” is necessary not only “because the socioeconomic system is
unjust at its root” but also because “today’s economic mechanisms
promote inordinate consumption. “When this unbridled consumerism is combined
with inequality it proves particularly damaging to our society, where the “excluded
are not the ‘exploited’ [anymore] but the outcast, the leftovers.”
As we can see, the Pope is
opposing not just an economic system where exclusion is possible but one where
it has become the norm, that is, the “result of ideologies which defend
the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation.” As a
true postmodern philosopher, Pope Francis concludes his observations by
pointing out how far “we are far from the so-called ‘end of history’” because
economic growth, encouraged by a free market, instead of bringing greater
prosperity for all, has increased “widespread corruption and self-serving
tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions.”
Piketty seems to have
provided both historical and economic justification for the Pope’s concerns
over an “economy of exclusion” and a “financial system which
rules rather than serves.” If capitalism has become such an economic
system it is not simply because of its natural drift toward high inequality,
which the author demonstrates through detailed historical analysis, but also
because capitalism permits the concentration of wealth to perpetuate from one
generation to the next (as the Spanish royal family has just demonstrated).
This occurs when the “rate
of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income” and“
capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities
that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies
are based.” The French economist suggests a “progressive annual tax on
capital” that would contain the “unlimited growth of the global
inequality of wealth, which is currently increasing at a rate that cannot be
sustained in the long run and that ought to worry even the most fervent
champions of self-regulated market.”
If Piketty seems to have
become Francis’s economist, it is not simply because he provides a solution the
Pope would most likely endorse, but also because he has moved away from the
scientific nature of his discipline, that is, economic determinism. After all,
the French economist believes that the “resurgence of inequality after
1980” was not caused simply by capitalism’s inevitable drift towards
inequality but also by “the political shifts of the past several decades,
especially in regard to taxation and finance.” The Pope’s call for a
financial system that “serves instead of rules” is directed against
this political shift, which has always avoided financial reforms such as those
suggested by both men.
Although Piketty will
probably continue to teach economics in France instead of moving into the
Vatican, the Pope now has an economist whom he can rely upon when he
pontificates from Rome, regardless of all accusations of Marxism. These
accusations, then, are not only necessary to bring together economists and the
Holy See but also serve to mark a turning away from capitalism’s acceleration
of inequality for anyone so accused, regardless of our faith or social status.
[...]
Santiago Zabala is ICREA
Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of Barcelona. He is the
author of, among other things, The Hermeneutic Nature of Analytic Philosophy
(2008), The Remains of Being (2009), and, most recently, Hermeneutic
Communism (2011, coauthored with G. Vattimo), all published by Columbia
University Press and translated into several languages. His forthcoming book is
Only Art Can Save Us. He also writes opinion articles for The New York
Times, Al-Jazeera, The Los Angeles Review of Books, and The Guardian.
No comments:
Post a Comment