Part 01 — Why Critical Race Theory is an existential threat to Capitalism and Christianity, a theory.
Full transparency I am a white cis-gendered middle-class male, who is currently getting their master's in communication. Also, every male role model in my life leans ultra-conservative. Furthermore, for the first 3 decades of my life, I grew up watching Fox news in a Christian home. I will not claim to fully understand both sides of this argument, but I think I have a pretty good idea as to what is going on under the surface based on my own personal experiences growing up in the South, and conversations with others. If you have been watching the news media recently then it is becoming painfully obvious that the next few election cycles are going to hinge on how the American people perceive Critical Race Theory, either as a way to build a more perfect union or as the Marxist scythe that tears it down. At the crux of it all is this question, is racism in America a personal choice or systemic? For many Evangelicals and Conservatives, the answer to this question could mean the end of Capitalism and or the supremacy of American Christianity, but maybe in ways, one would not expect.
What does it mean if racism is a personal choice?
Now I believe most conservatives think that racism in America is a personal choice. If true, then logically one could conclude that the system is largely fair and just. Racism when it happens on a personal level (small scale) is the exception to the norm. If the system is fair then everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, and success is based on a person’s efforts, merits, and moral choices. Ultimately this mindset leads one to believe that the poor are poor as a result of a character defect like vice or lethargy. They chose to be poor, or deserve to be poor because they were morally bad and or lazy people. I have personally encountered a lot of statements that American Christians and Conservatives believe. Statements that I accepted as true up until a few years ago. Statements like: “we are the richest and most prosperous country in the world, if you can’t make it work here then it is your own fault?” or “The poor are poor because they choose to be. A.K.A. they are lazy and don’t want to work for a living.”
What does it mean if racism is systemic?
On the other hand: if racism in America is systemic, then the system is not fair for all people. If it is not fair for all people, then a person’s efforts, merits, and moral choices have a diminished effect on where they land in the social stratosphere and is therefore unjust. And if it is unjust, then we (white people like myself in particular, who benefitted the most from this system) are morally obligated to help those who are unfairly disadvantaged by the system through some mechanism like welfare or reparations to balance the offset, and there goes capitalism.
What is Capitalism?
For a moment indulge me what is capitalism? Here is a definition from Britannica.com says that “Capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.” A simpler explanation would be to say that Capitalism is an economic system characterized by the survival of the fittest, with little to no regulation by the government. As Jack Sparrow would say “Take what you can, give nothing back” because what is a pirate/privateer if not an entrepreneur looking to disrupt the market for profit? From this, we can draw out a few ideas. In a pure Capitalist society, companies that work smarter, harder, better, faster, etc will prosper, and the ones that don’t will fail. Again this comes back to merit. Do the efforts of individuals and corporations karmically merit prosperity? While one may be inclined to think yes, a few further questions could throw this into doubt.
What happens when someone reaches the top? When they reach the point of market dominance that no newcomer can compete with their infrastructure, and either get crushed by the big boys or folded into the mothership. Would I as a CEO of a company that makes “Brand A” which has achieved market dominance allow new competition to nip at my profit margin/annual bonus, and allow that company the room to grow, prosper at my expense, and eventually become a serious challenger, or do I sniff out and crush all newcomers because I believe “Brand A” is the best — who doesn’t after all — and if it is the best, then there is no need for a “Brand B.” Which is to say nothing of the jobs that I would be protecting at my company. The reality is that most Entrepreneurs believe that they/ their company is the best, offers the best product or service. And If you absolutely believe that you are the best, you’d be surprised at the things you can justify doing to those whom you deem inferior. Just look through history at what religions and races who thought they were superior, did to those they deemed inferior. Certainty justifies contempt for the inferior.
Once companies achieve absolute dominance in society, in that no one can reasonably compete with them, a new question has to be asked, do we have a capitalist society at that point, or have we regressed back to feudalism? After all, what did it take to be one of the first kings, as tribes within a protonation warred it out till one came out on top and overtook all the others in the region? After a feudalistic nation was established could any other newcomer within the nation rise up and compete for power or dominance within the nation? Occasionally it has happened throughout history, but was the playing field fair? Do rebels enjoy the same opportunities as kings, obviously not. Capitalism like any other system comes with many pro’s and con’s. It does promote (at least in the beginning) competition, hope, and the desire for excellence. But it can also be very cruel, after all, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, sometimes we just forget that those eggs are people’s lives.
The problem is when a winner does come out on top, Capitalism tends to atrophy into something resembling feudalism. Where excellence is no longer required but maintenance. The leader got far enough ahead of the pack that they no longer need to innovate because they can just do things faster and cheaper than the others even if the product becomes inferior over time. If I can crush all competition, then there is no choice, the population must accept the inferior product/service. If a contender arises with a superior product, I can undercut them in price, flood the market with products devaluing theirs’s before they can make a profit, afterwards I could buy them up on the cheap if I choose to, if some of their ideas could be useful in my company. Is that fair? No, but that’s capitalism.
Is America a Capitalist Country?
The real fallacy is the belief that America is a Capitalistic society. Once as a nation you open up your borders to imports and exports capitalism enters a theater of geo-politics and no longer functions properly. It now becomes, that foreign competition in the marketplace takes of an aspect of national security. In which corporations regardless of their individual ability, cannot compete on the world stage against other foreign corporations, if those corporations receive state funding to make their products cheaper than yours. Receiving funding from the state, to outproduce foreign rivals is not true capitalism.
What’s also true is this, can a country invest in all of its companies big and small to make them all competitive on the world stage, or do countries put all their eggs in one basket, to make that company un-beatable? More often than not the latter is what happens. In that instance, all the other companies that didn’t receive government funding will fail, not because they were inferior in some way, but because they were not picked. This system is called Neo-liberal Capitalism, and America has been operating this way since the ’80s. Every theater of American export is touched by the government to make it competitive on the world stage in an effort to guarantee American supremacy. That’s the only way we can compete with nations that do not have, healthcare, safety standards, and minimum wage requirements. It's also the only way we can compete with countries that also use their taxpayer dollars to ensure their own viability and supremacy in world markets. Just look at China, for years they have been investing their considerable wealth and influence to build up their country's companies to dominate on the world stage. Industries that they cannot break into, get bought into. The list of American companies that have Chinese partners/owners is staggering and growing. Only once China started buying out American tech, and defense companies did the American government start worrying about national security. These acquisitions were not because the Chinese companies had the money to do so, they were given this money by their government to dominate. Do I blame them? No, America has been doing it for 40 years now.
The problem, again as it relates back to the original question, is success in Capitalism merit-based, or systemic. If success is systemic (pre-determined by size, wealth, network, and government support), then can racism also be systemic? In a pure capitalist society — success by merit only works if everyone starts at the same time, with the same resources. The first one to the finish usually wins then dominates as king, just look at facebook vs Harvard connection. The later you are to the party the further disadvantaged you become, just look at Wilbur and Orville Wright versus Glenn Curtiss (even then the Wright brothers still lost to the corporations in the end). And the more dominant a Company becomes, the more systemic a system becomes, just look at Walmart vs mom and pop stores, whom the latter couldn’t compete with Walmart’s buy in bulk strategy. The problem of “systemic-capitalism versus merit-based capitalism” only intensifies once governments step in with funding to anoint those whom they want to vie for American supremacy on the world stage. But what is more fascinating to me is why American Christians are also terrified of Critical Race theory, and its for many of the same reasons as the Capitalists are. I will try to explain why I think it is so in Part 02.
I hope this helps someone out there.
