Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The False Idol of Unfettered Capitalism
When I returned to New York City after nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans, I was unsure of where I was headed. I lacked the emotional and physical resiliency that had allowed me to cope as a war correspondent. I was plagued by memories I wanted to forget, waking suddenly in the middle of the night, my sleep shattered by visions of gunfire and death. I was alienated from those around me, unaccustomed to the common language and images imposed by consumer culture, unable to communicate the pain and suffering I had witnessed, not much interested in building a career.
It was at this time that the Brooklyn Academy of Music began showing a 10-part film series called "The Decalogue." Deka, in Greek, means 10. Logos means saying or speech. The Decalogue is the classical name of the Ten Commandments. The director was the Polish filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski, who had made the trilogy "White, Blue and Red." The 10 films, each about an hour long and based on one of the commandments, were to be shown two at a time over five consecutive weeks. I saw them on Sunday nights, taking the subway to Brooklyn, its cars rocking and screeching along the tracks in the darkened tunnels. The theater was rarely more than half full.
The films were quiet, subtle and often opaque. It was sometimes hard to tell which commandment was being addressed. The characters never spoke about the commandments directly. They were too busy, as we all are, coping with life. The stories presented the lives of ordinary people confronted by extraordinary events. All lived in a Warsaw housing complex, many of them neighbors. They were on a common voyage, yet also out of touch with the pain and dislocation of those around them. The commandments, Kieslowski understood, were not dusty relics of another age, but a powerful compass with vital contemporary resonance.
In film after film he dealt with the core violation raised by each of the commandments. He freed the commandments from the clutter of piety and narrow definitions imposed upon them by religious leaders and institutions. The promiscuous woman portrayed in the film about adultery was not married. She had a series of empty, carnal relationships. Adultery, at its deepest level for the director, was sex without love. The father in the film about honoring our parents was not the biological father. The biological mother was absent in the daughter's life. Parenting, Kieslowski knew, is not defined by blood or birth or gender. It is defined by commitment, fidelity and love. In the film about killing, an unemployed drifter robs and brutally murders a cab driver. He is caught, sentenced and executed by the state. Kieslowski forces us to confront the barbarity of murder, whether it is committed by a deranged individual or sanctioned by society.
I knew the commandments. I had learned them at Sunday school, listened to sermons based on the commandments from my father's pulpit and studied them as a seminarian at Harvard Divinity School. But Kieslowski turned them into living, breathing entities.
" ... For 6,000 years these rules have been unquestionably right," Kieslowski said of the commandments. "And yet we break them every day. We know what we should do, and yet we fail to live as we should. People feel that something is wrong in life. There is some kind of atmosphere that makes people turn now to other values. They want to contemplate the basic questions of life, and that is probably the real reason for wanting to tell these stories."
In eight of the films there was a brief appearance by a young man, solemn and silent. Kieslowski said he did not know who the character was. Perhaps he was an angel or Christ. Perhaps he represented the divine presence who observed with profound sadness the tragedy and folly we humans commit against others and against ourselves.
"He's not very pleased with us," was all the director said.
The commandments are a list of religious edicts, according to passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy, given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. The first four are designed to guide the believer toward a proper relationship with God. The remaining six deal with our relations with others. It is these final six commands that are given the negative form of "You Shall Not ... ." Only two of the commandments, the prohibitions against stealing and murder, are incorporated into our legal code. Protestants, Catholics and Jews have compiled slightly different lists, but the essence of the commandments remains the same. Muslims, while they do not list the commandments in the Koran, honor the laws of Moses, whom they see as a prophet.
The commandments are not defined, however, by the three monotheistic faiths. They are one of the earliest attempts to lay down moral rules and guidelines to sustain a human community. Nearly every religion has set down an ethical and moral code that is strikingly similar to the Ten Commandments. The Eightfold Path, known within Buddhism as the Wheel of Law, forbids murder, unchastity, theft, falsehood and, especially, covetous desire. The Hindus' sacred syllable Om, said or sung before and after prayers, ends with a fourth sound beyond the range of human hearing. This sound is called the "sound of silence." It is also called "the sound of the universe." Hindus, in the repetition of the Sacred Syllable, try to go beyond thought, to reach the stillness and silence that constitutes God. Five of the Ten Commandments delivered from Mount Sinai are lifted directly from the Egyptian "Book of the Dead." No human being, no nation, no religion, has been chosen to be the sole interpreter of mystery. All cultures struggle to give words to the experience of the transcendent. It is a reminder that all of us find God not in what we know, but in what we cannot comprehend.
The commandments include the most severe violations and moral dilemmas in human life, although these violations often lie beyond the scope of the law. They were for the ancients, and are for us, the core rules that, when honored, hold us together, and when dishonored lead to alienation, discord and violence. When our lives are shattered by tragedy, suffering and pain, or when we express or feel the ethereal and overwhelming power of love, we confront the mystery of good and evil. Voices across time and cultures have struggled to transmit and pay homage to this mystery, what it means for our lives and our place in the cosmos. These voices, whether in the teachings of the Buddha, the writings of the Latin poets or the pages of the Koran, are part of our common struggle as human beings to acknowledge the eternal and the sacred, to create an ethical system to sustain life.
The commandments retain their power because they express something fundamental about the human condition. This is why they are important. The commandments choose us. We are rarely able to choose them. We do not, however hard we work to insulate ourselves, ultimately control our fate. We cannot save ourselves from betrayal, theft, envy, greed, deception and murder, nor always from the impulses that propel us to commit these acts. These violations, which can strike us or be committed without warning, can leave deep, often lifelong wounds. There are few of us who do not wrestle deeply with at least one of these violations.
We all stray. We all violate some commandments and do not adequately honor others. We are human. But moral laws bind us together and make it possible to build a society based on the common good. They keep us from honoring the false covenants of greed, celebrity and power that destroy us. These false covenants have a powerful appeal. They offer feelings of strength, status and a false sense of belonging. They tempt us to be God. They tell us the things we want to hear and believe. They appear to make us the center of the universe. But these false covenants, covenants built around exclusive communities of race, gender, class, religion and nation, inevitably carry within them the denigration and abuse of others. These false covenants divide us. A moral covenant recognizes that all life is sacred and love alone is the force that makes life possible.
It is the unmentioned fear of death, the one that rattles with the wind through the heavy branches of the trees outside, which frightens us the most, even as we do not name this fear. It is death we are trying to flee. The smallness of our lives, the transitory nature of existence, the inevitable road to old age, are what the idols of power, celebrity and wealth tell us we can escape. They are tempting and seductive. They assure us that we need not endure the pain and suffering of being human. We follow the idol and barter away our freedom. We place our identity and our hopes in the hands of the idol. We need the idol to define ourselves, to determine our status and place. We invest in the idol. We sell ourselves into bondage.
The consumer goods we amass, the status we seek in titles and positions, the ruthlessness we employ to advance our careers, the personal causes we champion, the money we covet and the houses we build and the cars we drive become our pathetic statements of being. They are squalid little monuments to our selves. The more we strive to amass power and possessions the more intolerant and anxious we become. Impulses and emotions, not thoughts but mass feelings, propel us forward. These impulses, carefully manipulated by a consumer society, see us intoxicated with patriotic fervor and a lust for war, a desire to vote for candidates who appeal to us emotionally or to buy this car or that brand. Politicians, advertisers, social scientists, television evangelists, the news media and the entertainment industry have learned what makes us respond. It works. None of us are immune. But when we act in their interests we are rarely acting in our own. The moral philosophies we have ignored, once a staple of a liberal arts education, are a check on the deluge. They call us toward mutual respect and self-sacrifice. They force us to confront the broad, disturbing questions about meaning and existence. And our callous refusal to heed these questions as a society allowed us to believe that unfettered capitalism and the free market were a force of nature, a decree passed down from the divine, the only route to prosperity and power. It turned out to be an idol, and like all idols it has now demanded its human sacrifice.
Moral laws were not written so they could be practiced by some and not by others. They call on all of us to curb our worst instincts so we can live together, to refrain from committing acts of egregious exploitation that spread suffering. Moral teachings are guideposts. They keep us, even when we stray, as we all do, on the right path.
The strange, disjointed fragments of our lives can be comprehended only when we acknowledge our insecurities and uncertainties, when we accept that we will never know what life is about or what it is supposed to mean. We must do the best we can, not for ourselves, the great moralists remind us, but for those around us. Trust is the compound that unites us. The only lasting happiness in life comes with giving life to others. The quality of our life, of all life, is determined by what we give and how much we sacrifice. We live not by exalting our own life but by being willing to lose it.
The moral life, in the end, will not protect us from evil. The moral life protects us, however, from committing evil. It is designed to check our darker impulses, warning us that pandering to impulses can have terrible consequences. It seeks to hold community together. It is community that gives our lives, even in pain and grief, a healing solidarity. It is fealty to community that frees us from the dictates of our idols, idols that promise us fulfillment through self-gratification. These moral laws are about freedom. They call us to reject and defy powerful forces that rule our lives and to live instead for others, even if this costs us status and prestige and wealth.
Turn away from the moral life and you end in disaster. You sink into a morass of self-absorption and greed. You breed a society that celebrates fraud, theft and violence, you turn neighbor against neighbor, you confuse presentation and image with your soul. Moral rules are as imperative to sustaining a community as law. And all cultures have sought to remind us of these basic moral restraints, ones that invariably tell us that successful communities do permit its members to exploit each other but ensure that they sacrifice for the common good. The economic and social collapse we face was presaged by a moral collapse. And our response must include a renewed reverence for moral and social imperatives that acknowledge the sanctity of the common good.
The German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said, "Tell me ‘how' you seek and I will tell you ‘what' you are seeking." We all are seekers, even if we do not always know what we are looking to find. We are all seekers, even if we do not always know how to frame the questions. In those questions, even more than the answers, we find hope in the strange and contradictory fragments of our lives. And it is by recovering these moral questions, too often dismissed or ignored in universities and boardrooms across the country, laughed at on the stock exchange, ridiculed on reality television as an impediment to money and celebrity, that we will again find it possible to be whole.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



66 Comments so far
Show AllYou wrote:
"BTW Slavik, one can argue that the entire human species itself is too large to adhere to a common collection of morals."
Of course one can, and that has always been an important part of social policy and moral debate. However, with advances in modern technology, regarding communications and travel, the argument that the entire human race can be brought into one common belief system gains much more traction, and the concept of group as the human race becomes much more appealing (particularly given the recognition that today societies of humans that disagree with each other on fundamental points may have the desire and do have the ability to annihilate each other). But the point was that going beyond that would lead to more sacrifice than reward, leading to possible unsustainability of the human group, and the attempt came with many dangers, making it an inadvisable course of action. And I could add the further point that the overly ambitious move to expand the group beyond the human race, because of its inadvisability, weakens the momentum of the expansion of group concept to the point it makes it more difficult to even expand the group to the human race.
Humans are creative moral beings. As such, it would pretty much be impossible to come to a common belief system. The flip side is that the day we agree on, and agree to sustain, a common belief system is the day our civilization starts dying.
The advances in modern technology also foster extended virtual intentional communities, wherein people of similar outlook can band together for support, even if they find no one to support them in the communities of their domicile.
Humans disagree on many points, but that need not lead to annihilation. Instead, an achievable goal is harmony through a collection of protocols of engagement based on non-interference (of course, these should include mechanisms for members to leave a group if they so choose without punitive consequences). The principle of non-interference is easily extendable to all species. The additional principle that allows this is: once a particular species (civilization) gets too powerful or advanced, it ought to disengage from its erstwhile competing species as much as practically possible.
The above partially illustrates why I am vegan. As a species we are currently so advanced that to compete directly with animals for dominance would be similar to Shaq playing in the pee-wee leagues, or Anakin Skywalker fighting the younglings. As a species, we do not hunt anymore, we raise animals for slaughter. We have a choice to let them be, to not intefere directly in their development or existence (except on a personal level devoid of concepts of dominance). This non-interference leads naturally to harmony as its basis is rooted in respect for other forms.
I recognize that those groups of humans that have achieved uniformity in belief systems invariably did so under the threat of force. That is because we live in a world of unbounded complexity and the odds are astronomical against any two independent minds (not ever totally independent of course, but even partial independence leads to the same result) coming to the same conclusions or creating the same models of reality. Now, the scientific process can winnow down the possibilities and allow for good minds to coalesce around certain models of reality, but the scientific process has not developed to the point, and there may be theoretical limitations on it ever developing to the point, that it can be applied to determine the optimal goals, and associated values, for large human groups. So using it to create the uniformity of values or opinions is not an option in this arena.
It would be nice if we could just say that humans "should not" enter into conflicts over fundamental disagreements over values, or if we could establish any other universal "protocols" or laws that allowed for perfectly peaceful interactions, but it seems such suggestions have been made throughout history and never had much effect (when the interest in breaking the rule is greater than the interest in following the rule, the rule seems to get broken). And prohibiting "interference" sounds good, but experience shows that is not really achievable. We are going to interact globally, and we are either going to forge some universal agreement on fundamental values or we are going to annihilate each other. I do not like our odds but they are what they are.
...
With regard to:
"appear to coalesce around a 'non-interference as freedom' perspective"
I never think in terms of "freedom" but instead in terms of harmony, harmony with other humans in human society and harmony with non-human nature. I believe that promoting harmony with non-human nature is completely consistent with and follows from harmony with humans and a concern for humanity. The non-human nature that humans evolved and developed in must have been to a certain degree in harmony with human survival and welfare and so it makes sense to preserve it. You don't trash your own house, unless you are a complete fool.
As for "freedom," I see that as more of a predator's concept, as it turns the mind to focus on the self, ignore harmony with others, and externalize the costs, just as predatory corporations are wont to do. To me, the most basic meaning of "freedom" is externalizing the costs.
Hmmm, your thesis regarding freedom might hold if one uses a hierarchy of dominance (which is predatory). Otherwise, non-interference as freedom, is harmony. It is along the lines of "let them be," allowing us to be observer-participators instead of masters.
My thesis has absolutely nothing to do with hierarchy. It has to do with simple laws of physics from which follow the obvious conclusion that we are all interconnected whether we like it or not and everything we do affects everyone else whether we like it or not. We cannot "not interfere." It is impossible if we share the same planet. We can pretend we do not interfere, and that is what "externalizing the costs" is based on.
Slavik, a few of points:
The principle of non-inteference is not the same as a hands-off approach. The concept is in the context of, and presumes, the observation that we are all connected. In any system, feedback control mechanisms typically are the opposites of the feed-forward mechanism. Since the default state of interaction in life is inter-connectedness (feed-forward), the control mechanism is non-interference (feedback). There are many engineering examples such as current/resistence, and economic examples like greed/regulation, etc.
Now, the scientific process can winnow down the possibilities and allow for good minds to coalesce around certain models of reality, but the scientific process has not developed to the point,
The scientific process is available to any field of inquiry in the human domain. It is only the scientific method because the scientists rely almost exclusively on it.
I wouldn't phrase it as "good minds -- coalescing" which comes across as at authoritarian and hierarchical. A better approach is to focus on good ideas vs. bad ideas wherein the focus is on actions, ideas and values rather than entities/beings.
I can see how you associate freedom with the externalization of costs. This is not the case in an egalitarian system that uses non-inteference as a core principle in an environment of interconnectedness.
You wrote:
"The scientific process is available to any field of inquiry in the human domain. It is only the scientific method because the scientists rely almost exclusively on it."
However, the scientific process only appears to provide reliable and useful answers for those domains in which controlled scientific experiments can be performed, with a small number of variables, as in the hard sciences. Such reliable experiments are not available to the soft sciences, as there are too many variables, particularly too many that cannot be controlled in a scientific experiment, and therefore such fields of study do not experience similar progress (or one might say "any progress").
And you wrote:
"The principle of non-inteference is not the same as a hands-off approach. The concept is in the context of, and presumes, the observation that we are all connected. In any system, feedback control mechanisms typically are the opposites of the feed-forward mechanism."
Foro me, non-interference with regard to non-human nature appears intellectually dishonest. By participating in a technologically advanced civilization, one participates in the creation of a great variety and quantity of electromagnetic radiation, chemical waste, particulate matter in the atmosphere, solid waste, and resource depletion, both organic and inorganic, and otherwise has tremendous effect on the air, land, and water of the Earth, and thereby impacts great numbers of individual members of myriads of species in sometimes predictable and often inpredictable ways, sometimes even impacting whole species, more often than not for the worse. You may try to mitigate that impact, possibly through your feedback control mechanisms, but there will remain tremendous interference. I suppose one can be for non-interference and still participate, but it would cause me a bit of cognitive dissonance, which I already possess in overabundance due to paying taxes to a thug imperialist government whose foreign policies I find abhorrent.
I do not fret so much about humans impacting "nature," though I hope we can develop a more harmonious relationship with non-human nature. Humans are of course part of Earth's nature, part of the Earth (just another kind of Earth critter -- the only thing that makes humans "special" is that they are us and so they are special to us), and happen to be for now the most influential part of Earth's nature, but we all know that can change, and other Earth critters may come along to dominate the surface of this small rock hurtling through space.
And why must you address me as "Slavik" when you maintain an alias, as in "ThoughtShaman"? I prefer "kivals" just in case someone I know, but do not know too well, happens across this site. It is not much of an alias, but just enough.
...useful answers for those domains in which controlled scientific experiments can be performed...Such reliable experiments are not available to the soft sciences, as there are too many variables, particularly too many that cannot be controlled in a scientific experiment, and therefore such fields of study do not experience similar progress (or one might say "any progress").
The nature of the domains are different. That is not the fault of the process. The process ensures that people do not make obvious errors and assumptions in advancing their thesis. "Validity" and "correctness" are distinct concepts :-).
By participating in a technologically advanced civilization... thereby impacts great numbers of individual members of myriads of species...You may try to mitigate that impact, possibly through your feedback control mechanisms, but there will remain tremendous interference. I suppose one can be for non-interference and still participate
You get the point of the idea. We interfere on a global level anyway, in this sense, it is similar to global environmental effects on other species. However, there is no need for us to target specific individuals of other species when alternatives are available (such as raising animals for food, etc. Unnecessary cruel cosmetic tests on animals, etc.).
I do not fret so much about humans impacting "nature," though I hope we can develop a more harmonious relationship with non-human nature.
I do not see them as separate as we are interconnected (we are not its masters), we just have more capability and thus we ought to exercise more responsibility during the process of our development.
why must you address me as "Slavik"
I apologize - it was an educated guess. Sometimes the desired monikers are taken and I have encountered such monikers being spelled backwards before e.g. "naoj" for "joan."
I am beginning to get the impression that we could go on forever on this thread so I am getting ready to wrap this up. You may reply, and I will probably read it, but I will not reply again on this thread unless I find your reply offensive or insulting in some manner, which I do not expect.
My understanding of the scientific process is that it involves the development of testable hypotheses, which are then tested. The most reliable and valid tests are rigorously controlled experiments, which allow for the identification and precise measurement of particular dependent variables given the values of particular independent variables. Fields of study where such experimentation cannot be performed do not appear to advance to the same degree, if at all, as those where the rigorous experimentation is performed, i.e., the hard sciences. I wish that were not so. However, the soft sciences may at times advance to some degree from the application of adopted theories of the hard sciences that have been successfully tested, e.g. advances in psychology from advances in neuroscience based on understanding of the chemistry of neurotransmitters.
I guess I never think in terms of humans being "masters" or being superior to other species. It is just that humans are my group and I want my group to do well as it struggles to survive alongside all the other species struggling to survive. I do think that broadening one's self interest to include ever more expansive groups is a healthy and sound approach to life, but going beyond the human species as a group at this point appears inadvisable (I know I am repeating myself) as the rewards would not equal the sacrifices.
And I apologize for the typos in my earlier comment (e.g., "Foro" and inpredictable"). I was in a hurry as I had pressing work matters to deal with. And thanks for understanding about "kivals." I deal with many conservatives in my professional life (I am an attorney), and it would not do for any of them to come across any of my comments here and recognize the source.
Great article! I would recommend a good and very insightful book as to our current economic plight by Naomi Klein titled "SHOCK DOCTRINE - THE RISE OF DISASTOR CAPITALSIM." For an intro to this book you can listen/watch an interview she gave back in Oct. of 08 at "fora.tv.com/naomiklein
These comments on this thread are wonderfully thought provoking and respectful, and remind me of the reason I enjoy CommonDreams... There are no reactionary trolls, put downs, or off-topic rants... Folks are having discussions about ethics and science and religion and secular society and sharing useful info and profound insights about the human condition... I want to reply to each and every one of the posts here, as there are so many inspirational ideas flowing here... Instead I will just enjoy this rare moment by giving thanks and praises to everyone here on this forum who shares their hearts and minds in a compassionate and conscientious way... May we be the critical mass we have been waiting for...
Good writings are like good music -- written to enjoy, sooth, and contemplate. Being analytical, only substracts from the enjoyment. So enjoy.
Thanks very much Chris
somebody mentioned richard rohr in this thread...in reading chris hedge's piece i kept thinking of both rohr and father keating (who talks about the 'false-self system' which has so dominated mainstream culture for ages... just wanted to share a little rohr quote i wrote down awhile back that seems relevant:
"...jesus does not directly take on social reform. instead he preaches a life of simplicity and nonviolence that is simply OUTSIDE the system of power, money and control. more than directly fighting the system, he ignores it and builds an alternative worldview where power, prestige and possessions are not sought or even admired. such withdrawal of allegiance is finally the most subversive act possible because the powers that be can no longer control you either positively or negatively (by getting you to react against them). you are no longer inside their reward and punishment system. maybe that is why mystics, saints and hermits so infuriate the body politic. they ignore the whole thing and build an alternative set of loyalties."
there does seem to be alot of building of those alternative sets of loyalties going on these days. the 'unemployed' can be a misnomer because many (jobless) folks appear to be more gainfully (if material gain isn't the only gain we're measuring) employed than they ever were going after money. as they say, 'shift happens'.
Is anyone else struck by this critical assertion which goes unexamined?
... all cultures have sought to remind us of these basic moral restraints, ones that invariably tell us that successful communities do permit its members to exploit each other but ensure that they sacrifice for the common good.
Such a critical point. Perhaps Mr. Hedges would care to provide an exegesis for that nugget?