My last column resulted in an interesting if predictable set of reactions. The Pietists wrote in and wondered what all this had to do with the gospel. The theonomists wrote in and argued for capitalism as a divine gift. At least they were trying to think biblically. Then there were those who said ‘this is all dead boring politics which causes too much argument’ and then made a joke about it. But the most depressing reaction were those Christians of the 'there is no alternative' school. I had forgotten how little we think and how inherently conservative we are.

Anyway I am grateful for each and every response and I enjoyed immensely thinking through some of these issues. Despite my pietist friends I believe that this is of fundamental importance to the gospel - that is why there is so much bible teaching about the subject. Those of us who are conservative evangelicals (in a theological sense) dare not leave the field on this to the liberation theologians or to the social gospellers who ignore other fundamental aspects of the gospel.

This is my second and, for the moment, last column on the subject. I want to deal with two of the most important failings of global capitalism. Globalisation and Russia.

Firstly, globalisation. Globalisation refers to the increasing smallness of the ‘global village’ where in this tower of Babel utopia everyone will speak English, drink coca-cola and eat Big Macs. More importantly globalisation refers to the idea that global corporations now rule the world. Having accepted Adam Smith's maxim that the markets are of first importance our great leaders, Bush and Blair meet every now and then with their G8 colleagues and represent the interests of the global corporations, some of whom have turnovers greater than the GDP of most countries. All that seems to matter is that these global corporations remain free to move people and capital wherever they want. These corporations wield enormous political power. Take for example the recent Banana Wars. Putting it simply France and Britain wanted to give favorable trade to its former colonies by buying their bananas first. They were not allowed to do this. Why because the American government threatened a damaging trade war if this was done. Why? The major fruit corporations gave millions to both the Republican and Democratic parties. So the deed was done. A desire to help the small and poor banana farmers in the West Indies was overwhelmed by corporate power. That same power which threatens the European Union if it dares to insist that American beef should be identified as having artificial hormones or if it dares to label genetically modified foods (whatever happened to freedom of choice?).

In our market driven economies the whole emphasis is on growth. Grow or die. President Bush put it quite clearly when he refused to sign the Kyoto agreement - the American economy comes first. Now it may be that Bush genuinely believes that Kyoto will not work and that there is a better way. Well he needs to come up with that better way soon or even his most ardent defenders will be forced to admit that it looks as though he is letting the profitability of American corporations (particularly the fossil fuel ones which funded his campaign) dictate his economic and global policies.

The dominance of market forces is degrading and unchristian. Sure there must be trade but there must be restrictions on trade. Do we have the right to trade in heroine, or slaves or prostitutes? Of course not. Likewise in a wider sense markets and companies must be held accountable. To argue otherwise is to argue for Babylon.

In terms of globalisation ,the dominance of corporate capitalism has resulted in something that communism would have been proud of. Uniformity. We used to laugh at the East Germans all driving Trabants - we were horrified at the grayness and sameness of it all but now that capitalism has triumphed we should beware. The same thing is happening. Certainly there is not the grayness but there is the sameness and the uniformity which is so soulless. Go to any high street in Britain and you will find that the shops are basically the same. I was astounded in Jackson to find that the restaurants basically served up the same food - sure the presentation was different but it all tasted fairly bland to me. I wondered why until someone told me that all the basic ingredients were supplied by the same national supplier. It was cheap, plentiful and tasteless.

Corporate capitalism does not like variety. It wants to control and own and uniformise. It wants to patent genes, control media and stifle any questioning of its own all-pervasiveness. Does anyone else find it depressing that the big 'M' is more recognised throughout the world than the symbol of the cross? Does it not disturb you that the ultimate sign of progress in Russia is considered to be the opening of MacDonald’s?

Speaking of Russia - that too is one of capitalisms great failures. Ten years ago the Russians resisted a coup which was threatening the return of communism. Now many are asking why they bothered. The country's GDP is now 65% of what it was under communism, industrial output just 45%. Three quarters of the collective farms are now bankrupt; barter has replaced cash; medical services are no longer free; the school system is collapsing; the state pension is 30 pounds per month.

Yet Russia is wealthy. It has one quarter of the world's natural gas, massive reserves of oil and many other natural resources. These vast resources and the huge state owned monopolies were largely privatised in the mid 1990's. Did these release the latent economic energies of Russian prosperity? Did it bring efficiency? Did it create wealth? Not at all. Unless you count the 2% of the population who now own over 50% of the national wealth. These are the same people who are buying up homes around London, sending their children to the best British public schools, sometimes paying in wads of cash. It’s no wonder that many ordinary Russians pine for communism. As The Scotsman succinctly put it - "Democracy, has ironically, brought back the gaping inequalities of Tsarist Russia that triggered the communist revolution in the first place".

So please excuse me. I do not share in the triumphalism that rejoices over Russia's demise and corporate capitalism's supremacy. The demon of communism has been driven out but one fears that is has been replaced by seven demons worse than the first.

What does God say? “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never failing stream” (Amos ch.5 v.21-24).

back