There’s much to like in Richard Jordan’s essay today at Law & Liberty, “Romancing Creative Destruction.” But I object to his claim that “capitalism simply cannot sustain spiritually-rich communities by itself.”
My objection is not that the claim is mistaken; it’s not. This claim is correct. Indisputably so. My objection is to the supposition that motivates the claim – namely, that a significant number of serious thinkers believe that capitalism can sustain spiritually rich communities by itself, or that the case for capitalism depends upon capitalism being able to sustain spiritually rich communities by itself.
No serious proponent of capitalism believes – or would even think to entertain the notion – that capitalism can sustain spiritually rich communities by itself. I’ve never read or met a champion of a free-market order who believes that were families, friendships, and ethical codes all done away with while capitalism is operating, spiritually rich communities that were once sustained with the help of the likes of familial, neighborly, and communal ties would be sustained by capitalism “by itself.”
Indeed, the more I ponder the claim that “capitalism simply cannot sustain spiritually-rich communities by itself” the more I’m unable to pin down its meaning. Nothing can sustain such communities “by itself.” The claim seems on its face to be weighty and important. But when it’s pondered seriously, this claim dissolves into meaninglessness.
