Capitalism and Religion (1962)

[Roger Bissell]

Capitalism and Religion

by Barbara Branden

[This essay was written as "Intellectual Ammunition" in response to the question: "Should a Rational Advocate of Capitalism Co-operate with Those 'Conservatives' Who Base Their Advocacy of Capitalism on Religious Faith?"]

Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the evidence of reality provided by man’s senses. To base one’s convictions on reason is to base them on the facts of reality. Faith is the acceptance of an idea without evidence or proof, or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

To rest one’s advocacy of capitalism on faith is to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies. Such a position implies that a free society cannot be rationally justified—that there are no rational arguments why men should not murder and enslave one another—that logic is on the side of dictatorships, firing squads and concentration camps, but men should renounce logic in favor of such “irrationalities” as freedom, justice, individual rights, achievement, prosperity and progress.

The implications of tying capitalism to faith have come nakedly into the open in the explicit irrationalism of many “conservative” groups. Intending to bring the mystical concept of Original Sin into political theory, they declare that man is depraved by nature, that reason is impotent, that man should not attempt to create a perfect political system or to establish a rational society on earth—but should settle for capitalism, instead.

The communists allege that their political philosophy is rational and has been scientifically proved. The mystical “conservatives” concede it and retreat into the world of the supernatural, surrendering this world to communism—a victory that the communists’ irrational ideology could never win on its own merits.

Collectivism gained its intellectual influence and appeal by promising a scientific approach to social problems—a promise which it could not and did not keep. Today, disillusioned by the horrors which collectivism has achieved in practice, people, particularly young people, are seeking a rational alternative—which, in fact, only capitalism can provide. But instead of proof, logic or science, today’s mystical “conservatives” have nothing better to offer than appeals to faith, revelation and the supernatural. In our age, in the presence of the triumphs of science, no thinking man will listen to the voices from the Dark Ages speaking of Original Sin and the futility of human endeavor; no thinking man will reject reason and the achievements of man’s mind. If the “conservatives” succeeded in convincing him that he must accept capitalism on faith or not at all, he would, properly, answer: Not at all.

To claim that capitalism rests on religious faith is to contradict the fundamental principles of the United States; in America, religion is a private matter which must not be brought into political issues.

One need not be an atheist in order to fight for capitalism—provided one keeps the two issues separate. A rational advocate of capitalism can cooperate with religious people who share his political principles, but only in a strictly secular movement, that is: only in a movement that does not claim religion as the base and justification of its political principles.

The greatest single threat to capitalism today is the attempt to put capitalism, mysticism and Original Sin over on the public as one “package deal.” No attacks by collectivists could do more to discredit capitalism than is done by this kind of attempt. Its result can be only to consign capitalism to the “lunatic fringe” of political thought and to remove it from the realm of serious, civilized discussion.

A rational advocate of capitalism should repudiate any individual or group that links capitalism to the supernatural. He commits treason to his own cause if and when he cooperates with the mystical “conservatives,” if and when he sanctions them as creditable spokesmen for the cause of freedom.

[This essay first appeared in the March 1962 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter and was posted here with the permission of the author on Wednesday, September 6, 2006. Comments and discussion are welcome.]

[Chris Grieb]

This piece is needed today. One thing that seems to have changed is that some right-wingers are not even supporters of capitalism. Pat Buchanan talks about Chrysler being a natural rescouce and protective tariffs.

[Kat]

Thanks Roger and Barbara. This is a very good piece and I have linked to it from Barbara's Official Objectivism thread for easy reference.

Over the years, I have become disillusioned and even cynical with our political system. The religionists takeover of the Republican party is truly appalling. It seems that many conservatives are religious and many atheists are collectivists. These facts look like contradictions to me.

The political agendas are pretty transparent. Religious people (the right) want to impose their beliefs on others by gaining political power, and collectivists (the left) want to impose more government and redistribute wealth. Libertarians promote capitalism and doesn't take a religious stand, but it has been denounced by the Objectivist orthodoxy so it's being taken over by the anarchists.

Objectivism seems to be the only philosophy I know of that is reason based and promotes capitalism. That is the right way to be. Too bad we are politically homeless.

Kat

[Judith]

There was an article on National Review's website in August by Heather MacDonald arguing that conservatism should not be based on religion and arguing against the truth of JudaeoChristianity. She based her attack on the truth claims of Western religion on the classic argument of "If God is good, why do bad things happen to good people, and why isn't everyone treated the same way?" She also said:

"And that is why I am uncomfortable when a political leader invokes God — assuming that he is serious in doing so — because he is operating beyond reason. When President Bush said in one of his debates with John Kerry: 'I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's one part of my foreign policy,' there is no way to dispute the claim. Perhaps if a president invoked his belief in human destiny as set out in the Koran as a support for his policies, a few more people would be uncomfortable as well."

In an earlier article she said:

"Skeptical conservatives — one of the Right's less celebrated subcultures — are conservatives because of their skepticism, not in spite of it. They ground their ideas in rational thinking and (nonreligious) moral argument. And the conservative movement is crippling itself by leaning too heavily on religion to the exclusion of these temperamentally compatible allies.

"Conservative atheists and agnostics support traditional American values. They believe in personal responsibility, self reliance, and deferred gratification as the bedrock virtues of a prosperous society. They view marriage between a man and a woman as the surest way to raise stable, law abiding children. They deplore the encroachments of the welfare state on matters best left to private effort."

Not quite the same as Objectivism, with its emphasis on "traditional American values" such as "marriage between a man and a woman", but not a bad group of people with which to build coalitions....

Judith

[Alfonso Jones]

Barbara Branden could --- and can --- write extremely well. Cohesive, well-argued, and to the point.

Alfonso

[Chris Grieb]

Thanks for the reminder about this article.

It is worth noting that Ed Hudgins regularly talks to and attends Grover Norquist's meetings. Ed has also appeared at events like the tax day appearance which Grover arranged. This event was carried on C=Span.

It worth mentioned at the time of Barbara's article the conservatives were politically the only game in town for Objectivists. That is definitely not true anymore.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Reidy]

Religious conservatism is well on its way out as a political force, less an issue than it was when Barbara Branden wrote this and much less than it was 20 or so years ago. Even then it wasn't as potent as liberals tried to make it look.

The Republicans blew off the last of their religiosity in the Schiavo case and, seeing what a popular, political and legal disaster it was for them, went on to other pursuits. Now the Democrats - Clinton, Obama and Kerry among them - are the ones trying to lay their religion on us and wanting to impose their morality on us forcibly. Tracinski has been keeping track of "the rise of the religious left" in TIA Daily for at least a year, and Time did a cover story earlier this summer. One reason why the long-term outlook is bad for the Democrats is that they're working out of the Republicans' trashcan.

[Chris Grieb]

I have not read Tracinski lately. I agree that the Reps will probably not repeat the Schiavo case.

I suspect the Dems may have a harder time appealing to the more religious elements of our culture. I think that words are not enough.

[Alfonso Jones]

It may be worse than that, in fact. To make an alliance with someone who is one's mortal enemy is at least potentially a form of protracted suicide. It involves strengthening one's adversary. That is precisely the result of making common cause with religionists in attempting to make a case for capitalism. You are walking a dangerous road of compromise of values when you cooperate with one enemy to attempt to defeat another. Stalin may end up being just as dangerous as Hitler (or more so).

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

It may be worse than that, in fact. To make an alliance with someone who is one's mortal enemy is at least potentially a form of protracted suicide. It involves strengthening one's adversary. That is precisely the result of making common cause with religionists in attempting to make a case for capitalism. You are walking a dangerous road of compromise of values when you cooperate with one enemy to attempt to defeat another. Stalin may end up being just as dangerous as Hitler (or more so).

Alfonso

If we had not helped Stalin the Nazis would have won. It was a question of choosing the lesser evil. After the Russians bled themselves white fighting Germans, we should have use the German survivors to fight the Russian survivors. At least, that is what George Patton thought.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

It may be worse than that, in fact. To make an alliance with someone who is one's mortal enemy is at least potentially a form of protracted suicide. It involves strengthening one's adversary. That is precisely the result of making common cause with religionists in attempting to make a case for capitalism. You are walking a dangerous road of compromise of values when you cooperate with one enemy to attempt to defeat another. Stalin may end up being just as dangerous as Hitler (or more so).

Alfonso

If we had not helped Stalin the Nazis would have won. It was a question of choosing the lesser evil. After the Russians bled themselves white fighting Germans, we should have use the German survivors to fight the Russian survivors. At least, that is what George Patton thought.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And my point is that it is a dangerous compromise. Not all things which are dangerous are wrong. But caution is required.

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

And my point is that it is a dangerous compromise. Not all things which are dangerous are wrong. But caution is required.

Alfonso

Ah! So true. We helped bin Laden fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Look where that got us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

And my point is that it is a dangerous compromise. Not all things which are dangerous are wrong. But caution is required.

Alfonso

Ah! So true. We helped bin Laden fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Look where that got us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

An excellent and timely example.

Alfonso

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

From what I have read, "help" is an understatement.

There is a phrase that is popular in Brazil as a Spanish saying: "Those who raise crows as pets get their eyes plucked out one day."

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

From what I have read, "help" is an understatement.

There is a phrase that is popular in Brazil as a Spanish saying: "Those who raise crows as pets get their eyes plucked out one day."

Michael

And no good deed will go unpunished. God hates altruists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Sorry. That is not true.

You just have to think in essentials and you will be all right. You can then help whoever you want with impunity.

If you help a good guy, you will receive benefit. If you help a bad guy, you will be attacked. Kind of obvious, isn't it?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Sorry. That is not true.

You just have to think in essentials and you will be all right. You can then help whoever you want with impunity.

If you help a good guy, you will receive benefit. If you help a bad guy, you will be attacked. Kind of obvious, isn't it?

Michael

No

I don't think in essentials. I just observe the facts. Acts of loving kindness are not guaranteed to be rewarded at all. One receives benefits when one does acts that benefit him and his. The goodness of the act is not essential. The benefit received is. That is obvious to me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Acts of loving kindness are not guaranteed to be rewarded at all. One receives benefits when one does acts that benefit him and his. The goodness of the act is not essential. The benefit received is. That is obvious to me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And sometimes the benefit is that it just makes one feel good that they helped, no matter what the outcome. Besides, an act of kindness may be resented at first but appreciated later on, you never know. If it feels good do it!

[BaalChatzaf]

And sometimes the benefit is that it just makes one feel good that they helped, no matter what the outcome. Besides, an act of kindness may be resented at first but appreciated later on, you never know. If it feels good do it!

There is nothing quite so selfish as hankering after that which makes one feel good. In that sense, being kind to others is a way of being kind to one's self.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

You know a good example of people doing things without any obvious benefit to themselves is the open source software movement. I can't believe the work done and published free online by volunteers all over the world! I do web development for a living and I use free software on all my platforms and it works better than anything you can buy, for the most part. This site uses PHP and Apache 1.3.37 (time to upgrade ) which is free software. I am using Debian linux on my PC and Firefox for browsing - all free thanks to countless individuals in the open source community.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This site uses PHP and Apache 1.3.37 (time to upgrade ) which is free software.

GS,

It sure is. Kat and I have the willies because of the nightmare from the change-over due to a hacker (this was before you became a member). We had damaged and incomplete backups, but we managed. That makes us a bit gun shy and it is easy to put this off.

Michael