Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
‘Inclusive capitalism’? Why not simply ‘capitalism’
‘Inclusive capitalism’? Why not simply ‘capitalism’
Jan 11, 2026 1:54 AM

When the feel-good word “inclusive” is applied to the not always feel-good word “capitalism,” it’s a little like mixing oil and water for lovers of socialism. They assume that capitalism is a naturally selfish “look out for your own short term gain while everyone else loses” economic system.

Read More…

I like the word inclusive. Who doesn’t? My colleague certainly likes the word inclusive, especially when I include more money in her paycheck. My wife likes the word inclusive, when I include her equally in my share of assets and especially when I include myself in the housekeeping. Now even the pope likes the word inclusive. It is a word that’s simply impossible not to like.

However, when the feel-good word “inclusive” is applied to the not always feel-good word “capitalism,” it’s a little like mixing oil and water for lovers of socialism. They assume that capitalism is a naturally selfish “look out for your own short term gain while everyone else loses” economic system.

Socialism, on the other hand, is more like the mystical Ubuntu, the “I am because we are” spiritual karma of the human economy. They think socialism – or even munism – is the economic system of inclusion monality par excellence. After all, if socialism is not social-oriented munism munity-oriented, then what are they?

Well, that’s what Pope Francis called for on November 11 in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace, as reported by Zenit’s Jim Fair, while lauding the intentions of those gathered as part of an exclusive “Council for Inclusive Capitalism.” The Council is a VIP advisory group of 500 top business leaders who met with Francis in 2016 as part of a Fortune-Time Global Forum of concerned capitalists. mon objective, shaped by social scientists, ethicists, and moral theologians, was to address the twenty-first-century challenge to “forge a new pact” on the global economy. As Fair writes, inclusive capitalism is a perspective that “eliminates poverty and allows everyone (emphasis added) to benefit from development.”

Can’t the two words – supposedly self-contradictory – just get along and work together? Why form an elite council of Fortune 500 executives to promote both capitalism and inclusiveness?

The Council must have calculated the formula, if inclusive + capitalism = a fair and prosperous economy for everyone, then why not give it a go?

During the audience Francis said a lot of beautiful words and waxed eloquent about the human capacity for service, stressing that it is sinful to treat one another like excess consumer waste, as part of the “throw-away culture.” Quite rightly, before the group of Inclusive Capitalists, Pope Francis said capitalism can’t just be about “balancing budgets,” that business is a most “noble vocation” that can be used as “an instrument for integral well-being.” When capitalism is kind and considerate of others’ well-being, it means more than “improving infrastructures or offering a wider variety of consumer goods,” the pope said. “Rather, it involves a renewal, purification, and strengthening of solid economic models based on our own personal conversion and generosity to those in need.”

Okay, we get it. Yet, what about when capitalism has to do what it has to do for the sake of progress and prosperity for all? This is when it gets ugly. What do we say when capitalism, in acts of what Schumpeter called “creative destruction,” must throw its economic babies out with the bathwater, as whole industries are replaced along with entire work forces? What do we say when it leads to bankruptcy or the buying out of dying, poorly panies by more innovative and prosperous ones?

Do we then slap capitalism on the wrist and say: “No, no, bad capitalism. That’s not inclusive of you! No one gets left behind. Just make sure everyone gets paid. And if you can’t do it, find a way to do so via some eternal font of government welfare. Remember the capitalist system per se is not about you, it’s about them.”

I am slightly fantasizing and, therefore, exaggerating for effect. The point is that capitalism already is inclusive by nature. There is no need to assign a new adjective to an economic system that already requires cooperation between economic agents and economic recipients, between service providers and those served, between customer care officials and the customers themselves. Capitalism, gone global, makes the impossible munity possible: the tight, interwoven, and colorful fabric of human collaboration between nations, along with their entire GDPs, their laws, their cultures, their religions, and every single hard worker while striving as a team for Adam Smith’s vision of The Wealth of Nations.

We must remind Pope Francis – and other doubters of capitalism’s natural propensity for inclusion – that capitalism is not just about hard capital (the material means, the money, or any of its capital assets) but also and much more so about soft capital (the caput, that is, our intelligent heads, moral collaboration, the intention to serve, create, and produce goods). It’s all about achieving mon good in wealth for all the nations, not simply for my profit today.

Capitalism is part of man’s natural social order and striving together for flourishing. It’s about exchange. It’s about markets. It’s fundamentally about providing goods and services to others.

Adam Smith’s eighteenth-century vision is often chastised for promoting “self-interest.” In reality, though, Smith was concerned not so much with self-interest but with the mystery of “human togetherness” in the great exchange of humankind.

It’s a shame we have to attach platitudes to the natural attributes of capitalism. We understand the Pope’s concern, since there are many false economies claiming to be “capitalism” that in effect are none other than cartels, monopolies, cronyism – all of which are built on frameworks of selfishness and ultimately self-destruction. Just go to Buenos Aires, and you’ll plenty of empathy for the Argentine pope. Regardless, it’s high time we praise capitalism for what it actually is, and not for what it isn’t or often pretends to be.

This is what Francis, in yesterday’s concluding remarks, says so eloquently about capitalism: It “serves mon good by striving to increase the goods of this world and make them more accessible to all (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 203) … It is not simply a matter of ‘having more,’ but ‘being more.’ What is needed is a fundamental renewal of hearts and minds so that the human person may always be placed at the center of social, cultural and economic life.”

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Close call on CAFTA
Close at Home The House of Representatives voted early this morning (12:03 am) to approve the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) after weeks of intense lobbying on both sides. The final vote was a close 217-215. My predictions: somehow, any dip in employment (if there is one) in the next six months will somehow be linked to CAFTA by its detractors. Detractors will attempt to take the moral high ground in American politics in ’06 and ’08, and even...
Seeing the trees, missing the forest
The United Nations has released a report on the ongoing upheavals in Zimbabwe, where tyrant Robert Mugabe has been punishing his political opponents under the guise of “cleaning up” the country’s cities. The effect of Operation Murambatsvina (meaning either “Operation Restore Order” or “Operation Drive Out Trash,” depending on who’s translation you believe) has been to leave some 700,000 people homeless, jobless, or both. A downloadable copy of the UN report is available here. While the report does illuminate the...
The school of fish
The recent blogpost by my colleague Jordan Ballor discusses an op-ed written by law professor Stanley Fish. I am more familiar with Stanley Fish from his days as a literary theorist, and perhaps a quick review of a younger Fish will contribute to the conversation. Fish is known for, among other things, an idea of literary interpretation he called munities’ that suggests meaning is not found in the author, nor in the reader, but in munity in which the text...
Great debate
Foreign Policy hosts this exchange on environmental issues and economics. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, gets the first word and Bjørn Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, gets the last word. ...
ExTORTion
S. T. Karnick over at The Reform ments on a recent suit filed against DuPont over Teflon, claiming that “DuPont lied in a massive attempt to continue selling their product.” Karnick observes that abuse of the tort system is rampant, in part because “it has been perverted into a proxy for the criminal justice system: a means of punishing supposed wrongdoers through the use of a weaker standard of proof—preponderance of the evidence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”...
Animal cruelty?
I’m not quite sure what to make of this local story: “Four people are charged for their alleged involvement in killing two bald eagles.” The details of the alleged crimes are as follows: “Prosecutors say two teenagers shot the eagles in the Muskegon State Game Area with a .22 caliber rifle in April 2004 and then chopped them up with a hatchet.” Since the bald eagle, one of the nation’s revered symbols, is an endangered animal, it is protected by...
CAFTA/Culture of Life: enemies?
John Paul II gave us all a tremendous gift by endorsing the terms Culture of Life and Culture of Death. But as with all great gifts, we must guard these terms carefully so as not to wear them out with misuse, robbing them of their relevance. Unfortunately, this is precisely what is happening in the current debate over CAFTA. A group called Catholics for Faithful Citizenship (PDF) claims the following: “Clearly, supporting CAFTA is inconsistent with upholding a culture of...
Textual interpretation
A week ago Stanley Fish, a law professor at Florida International University, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times about the principles of constitutional interpretation, especially as represented by Justice Antonin Scalia. Fish takes issue especially with the notion that the text can have meaning “as it exists apart from anyone’s intention.” Fish essentially denies that texts are things that can have meanings in themselves, and it amounts to a philosophical denial of realism. Part of Fish’s problem is...
The hermeneutical spiral
Mr. Phelps takes issue with my characterization of Stanley Fish’s position as amounting “to a philosophical denial of realism.” Let me first digress a bit and place ment within the larger context of my post. My identification of a position that “words and texts have no meaning in themselves” is really just an aside within the larger and more important question about what measure of authority authorial intent has in the interpretation of documents, specifically public documents like the Constitution....
Labor unions and free association
The Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have broken away from the plaining that the federation has focused too much on political activism in the face of declining union membership and influence. Dr. Charles Baird was a featured guest on yesterday’s edition of Kresta in the Afternoon on Ave Maria Radio, discussing Catholic perspectives on unionism and whether the modern American labor union movement patible with church teachings. Dr. Baird is Chair of the Department of...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved