In 1987, Lucia Santa Cruz interviewed Mr. Ferrara’s inconvenient Jesuit, James A. Sadowsky, S.J., the
first Rothbard-influenced anarcho-Catholic,* for the Chilean daily newspaper El
Mercurio. Father Sadowsky’s answers
to her questions were translated into Spanish, and the interview appeared in
the November 22nd edition of that periodical and reprinted
the following year in an anthology edited by Eliodoro Matte Larrain, entitled Cristianismo, Sociedad Libre Y Opción Por Los Pobres [Christianity, the Free Society, the Option for the Poor], which was published
in Santiago, Chile by Centro de Estudios
Publicos.
About ten years ago I attempted to render this interview into in
the expressions with which thirty years of friendship have made me familiar.
I was not happy with result, but only because he was not. (“It’s not English!,” he grumbled.) Although the result is looser than his
thought deserves, I no longer think it so
bad that the illuminating content of his thought—which I believe does pierce the wooden slats of my
translation—should be kept from a wider audience. And so after almost 25 years of waiting for
the truly bilingual kindred spirit to show up, I am publishing my amateur
version in the hope that he or she will find it (or you will tell him or her about
it) and be moved to ask me for a photocopy of Spanish text, which I will gratefully
supply.
The interview has been divided into nine consecutive posts, following
the subheadings of the original interview.
Some of you would want to know that Father Sadowsky’s health has
deteriorated over the past year. He is
well-provided for at the Jesuit infirmary in the Bronx, but pretty much alone
and forgotten. He needs your
prayers. If you wish to send him a note
of good wishes and appreciation, you may write him at Murray-Weigel Hall,
Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458.
Anthony Flood
* In answers to
questions put to him in another interview by Martin Masse for Le Québécois Libre (Montreal) in 2002,
Father Sadowsky related this aspect of his intellectual journey. That interview was
published on June 7, 2003. Take
this link to it. To read eleven
essays by him on philosophical, theological, and economic topics, visit
the
Sadowsky portal on my site.
The Drive for Profit?
Capitalism rests on a specific idea of human
nature and its basic motivations. What
it is the significance of the assertion of capitalism’s philosophers who claim
that man is moved primarily by the desire to satisfy his own interests?
It goes far beyond looking for personal
material benefits. Man (however
tautological this may sound) does aspire to meet his needs, but in the wider
sense, which covers the most diverse kinds of needs. Good can be of any kind, and one can desire
them not only for oneself, but also for one’s family and for society as a
whole. To desire something is not
necessarily to desire it for oneself.
You don’t believe,
then, that it is synonymous merely with the drive for profit?
Well, why do you suppose the Red Cross plays
the market? To make money? Clearly so they can satisfy the needs of
others, not their own.
Underlying capitalism
is not only a conception of human nature, but also a theory of knowledge that
presupposes the human mind’s limited ability to scientifically grasp all
mundane realities.
It is often said that there is a relation
between belief in absolute truth and intolerance. I deeply disagree. I don’t see a logical connection between them
such that it leads to the persecution of dissenters. Indeed, I fail to see why a relativist must
be tolerant. There is nothing in
relativism that logically favors tolerance.
I am referring to
mundane matters.
So am I.
But behind the idea
that the market allocates recourses more efficiently than does central planning
is the notion that the human mind cannot grasp the infinity of complex variables
that comprise reality and, therefore that each individual ought to be free to express
his preferences on the free market.
Well, all you’re saying is that there’s no
such thing as human omniscience. But
belief in absolute truth is not the same as belief in human omniscience. I claim only that in some very limited areas,
the human mind cannot err. Being free of
error is not the same as having knowledge.
In other respects this immunity from error is limited and refers only to
a few matters. For example, I can truly
affirm that I exist. You’re right with
respect to what is claimed about the market, but that only shows that we don’t
know everything. That does not, however,
necessarily warrant renouncing belief in absolute truth.
There is a difference
between believing in absolute truth and maintaining certain true sayings
irrevocably?
That’s why I told you that in claiming that
one can know absolute truth, I refer to a few, very restricted areas where
there are infallible truths. I would say
that in nine out of ten cases knowledge is conjectural; but it is important
that there be cases of non-conjectural knowledge. I insist on this, you see, because
in defending capitalism one must be careful not to base that defense on inadmissible
pretensions. Let me take an historical
example. One reason why the Catholic Church was so opposed to continental
liberalism is that it built its case on skepticism. Anglo-Saxon liberals never fell into that. The continental liberal tradition is
skeptical and rationalistic. People like
Adam Smith or Burke, however, could not be further from this position. This skepticism formed no part of the English
tradition or of the classical liberal philosophers. This is important, because these
considerations color the perception of capitalism.
To Be Continued
