Generosity and the Systemic Violence of Money

“At the forefront of our minds, the obvious signals of violence are acts of crime and terror, civil unrest, international conflict. But we should learn to step back, to disentangle ourselves from the fascinating lure of this directly visible ‘subjective’ violence, violence performed by a clearly identifiable agent. We need to perceive the contours of the background which generates such outbursts.”

Slavoj Žižek, in his book Violence,* reminds us that there are two forms of violence – 1) the visible and obvious forms of violence that are performed by a clear, identifiable agents, and 2) the not so visible, the hidden, or the systemic forms of violence. This is a fairly obvious statement, yet it is one that is so easily forgotten. This is especially true when we are the recipients of the benefits that violence produces. We are often willing to forget or not pay attention as to how we receive benefits through violence; benefits that are often in the form of material wealth. We often ignore how we receive benefits. In fact, we sometimes accept the benefits and declare them a blessing or we provide a justification as to why we deserve them.

I am reminded of Žižek’s words as we heard how Warren Buffett, a renown investor, and Microsoft founder Bill Gates announced on Wednesday, June 16, 2010, that they are encouraging hundreds of billionaire Americans to give away at least 50% of their wealth to charity. We are told by Timeslive that “Buffett, who made his fortune with insurance and investment company Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Gates and his wife, Melinda, have held a series of dinners with rich Americans in the past year to urge them to make a philanthropic pledge.”

Forbes magazine ranked Gates as the second richest man in the world this year making $53 billion, while Buffett came in 3rd with $47 billion. Forbes reported that the United States is home to 403 billionaires, the most in the world.

Is it coincidental that most billionaires are located in the United States? Has the United States simply succeeded in creating a culture of having a strong work ethic which has in turn created a natural home for the most billionaires in the world? Or should we analyze the structures and systems in place that assists in creating this reality?

Looking back to Žižek, we are challenged to take a step back and look behind the overt and obvious forms of violence that occur within society and to pay attention to the systems that create or foster the outbreak of overt violence. This challenge can be, and should be, done with regards to economics as well.

Does capitalism serve to benefit everyone or is it a system where “the have’s” benefit from the “have not’s”? This is a question that has been and will continue to be contemplated, and rightfully so. What we can say for certain, however, is that in capitalism we find a system that promotes attention to profit rather than the social implications of its economic gains and pursuits. There are perhaps a few examples where this may not be the case, but I think that it is safe to say that for most companies this is true. It may be too simplistic to simply state that behind this financial system sits real people who plan how they can exploit whole resources, both natural and social, in order to quench their greed. In other words, it would be too simplistic to argue that Warren and Gates sit behind a closed door in order to plan how they can exploit resources and communities in order to make profit. The issue, and system, is much more sophisticated and realistically is beyond the capability of attributing the problem to a few concrete individuals and their “evil” intentions (Žižek, 11). Buffett and Gates are simply two men who have been able to play the system well and make the most from it.

What can be said, however, is that Gates and Buffett are two examples of people who continue to participate in an economic system that ignores the social implications of its quest for capital. I do want to be clear that the generosity they are demonstrating ought to be commended. It is unfortunate, however, that it is precisely the unquestionable thirst for capital and growth, that is increasing the worth of one’s share, that creates many of the social ills that we face today. And so here we find two thriving businessmen, Buffett and Gates, who want to give the capital they have gained and accumulated back to the social and ecological issues that in many ways were created as a result of the quest for capital. The irony is obvious – we benefit from a system that focuses on profit and in so doing demolishes and ravages whole communities, and then we want to return the profit that we have made back into the communities that have been affected. Žižek says, “Their claim is that we can have the global capitalist cake, i.e. thrive as profitable entrepreneurs, and eat it, too, i.e. endorse the anti-capitalist causes of social responsibility and ecological concern” (Žižek, 14).

The assumption that Gates, Buffett, and others have, obviously, is that the two are not ideologically or even pragmatically opposites – one can be a successful entrepreneur/capitalist while being concerned for society. Although it may not be possible to fully articulate, demonstrate, or provide the necessary argumentation as to why this assumption is at best questionable, it is at least possible to say that because of capitalist tendencies and focus on profit as its defining modus operandi, the ecological impact around the world, especially mineral rich communities and nations, and the social fabric within many communities, especially in the global south, has been ravaged. This way of operating leads to the reality that, as Moeletsi Mbeki explains, in “most African countries social, economic and, to a large extent, political policies are not controlled by Africans or, more accurately, by Africa’s rulers; they are controlled by foreigners who do so to the benefit of other foreigners” (Mbeki, 145).**

The result being that the system in which we find ourselves a part of and operating in, and in some cases benefiting substantially from, lends itself to unethical practices, both environmentally and socially. In other words, we find ourselves in a position where we are benefiting from an unethical system, and yet we often fail to seek ways of stopping the unethical system from happening. Instead we give some of the benefits we gain back to those who have been ravaged in the process. Žižek again provides a valuable comment: “In liberal communist ethics [Gates being one of the main proponents argues Žižek], the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity. Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation. In a superego blackmail of gigantic proportions, the developed countries ‘help’ the undeveloped with aid, credits and so on, and thereby avoid the key issue, namely their complicity in and co-responsibility for the miserable situation of the undeveloped” (Žižek, 19).

The inevitable question, therefore, is whether we are simply caught in an inescapable predicament of participating in a system that benefits only a few? Are we caught within an unjust system, Gates and Buffett being examples of how to atone for our involvement in such an unjust system? Are we capable of responding creatively to systemic injustice and violence?

One of the unfortunately realities in recent discussion is that those who question the capitalistic system are often branded as communists as if these two, capitalism and communism, are the only two options available when it comes to economics. Is it possible to think creatively towards an alternative economic practice or policy? What if we as the Church, those who have decided to follow a different way of life—that of Jesus, began to think creatively as to how our economic policies and/or practices can be different? What if we explored ways in which our economic practices can be fair and just and be an example to the current economic system that focuses on profit?

What if we took the Bible, the life and teachings of Jesus, and the example of the early church as an example for our economic policies? What if we let those stories and examples shape our approach to economic practices?

If this were to be our starting point, I suspect that the health and well being of people, community, humanity, and the world in which we live in would provide the foundation and be our priority in this alternative economic practice rather than seeking individual wealth, glory, and power. What a radically different approach this would be. Rather than having a few people demonstrating their generosity with the money that they have accumulated through a system that has also served to oppress the same people who they are now wanting to help, we might develop a fair and just system that could benefit all.

One of the early Anabaptists—Pieter Pietersz. in The Way to the City of Peace—says in somewhat prophetic fashion, “It is precisely what people consider to be their welfare that causes the lack of peace in the world, the cause of judging and fighting, of wars and strife, of hatred and envy, and selfish profit with each one seeking to win the largest share for themselves. Therefore, people run stiff-necked into each other, buying, selling, lying, deceiving, each one seeking to undercut the other in order to possess the god of gold… This is why there is no peace in the world.”***

As Pieter Pietersz. says, in order for there to be peace in the world perhaps we as the church need to provide an alternative economic policy that demonstrates higher emphasis on justice, fairness, and concern for the other rather than concern for the self.

*Slavoj Žižek, Violence (London, England: Profile Books Ltd., 2009).

** Moeletsi Mbeki, Architects of Poverty: Why African Capitalism needs Changing (Johannesburg, South Africa: Picador Africa, 2009).

*** Pieter Pietersz., “The Way to the City of Peace” in Spiritual Life in Anabaptism ed. by Cornelius J. Dyck (Waterloo, ON: Herald Press, 1995).