mbjones

One recent book acquisition is [Liberation Theology after the End of History][1] by Daniel M. Bell, Jr. I got it from an interest in Latin American liberation theology (spurred originally by my reading of [Torture and Eucharist][2] last year). The book is billed as “…the most thorough account to date of the rise, failure, and future prospects of Latin American liberation theology” so naturally I opened and flipped through it upon its arrival.

What I didn’t expect though was the focus on theology versus capitalism. I should have as this is a logical assumption of liberation theology, but I didn’t. And this is what I got from chapter 1 onwards (well, I’ve only so far read into chapter 1 but the table of contents confirms the validity of this statement).

Also, I didn’t expect to be quite as intrigued by the opening as I was. It starts with a discussion of *savage capitalism*, which is basically the point capitalism is at in its evolution. The book opens with a discussion of Franz Hinkelammert’s three thesis’s on this:

1. Capitalism has won. Defeat has been conceded.
2. Under savage capitalism, the greater population of the world (particularly the Third World) is no longer needed and, as a result, is excluded.
3. Development in the third world is a threat to the world market and thus, is not possible.

Now– where does *savage capitalism find its origins? In the 50’s and 60’s developmentalism reigned. Welfare, public investment and industrialization of the third world was the norm. This shifted in the 70’s as the neoliberal economics became more popular (enabling a more extreme, unregulated capitalism). This locked out and negated the developmentalist attitudes of earlier years; capitalism is now aggressively anti-statist.

As to how the three thesis’s apply:

1. No longer was/is the third world receiving the support that they once did. Along with this, they “…lost the strategic importance they once possessed as pawns that the competing superpowers would play off against each other.”
2. The first world still does need the third world, just not its people. Their natural resources and raw materials are still quite important (and ripe for the plucking) regardless of what this might do to their populations.
3. Profit is king, not development. Seeking only its own end, adding to the competition would only serve as a threat to its continuing existence (it referring to any particular capitalistic machine).

As I said, I found this discussion quite interesting, particularly after having spent time in a country that is very much “Third World.” It’s not too difficult to see these thesis worked out in life. In the country I’m referring to the majority of the people live on less than $1 a day. One of the biggest problems is a capitalism run rampant. Nothing trickles down beyond the exploitative government or a few big business owners. Missionaries are left primarily on their own to provide development opportunities — state sponsored/foreign sponsored programs where *seemingly* non-existant (and from what we heard, money that might come in from those sources stayed trapped in the government). One of the oddest pictures I have in my mind is that of a brand new, spotless, white, 4 door mercedes sedan pulling out of a shanty neighborhood that likely lacked electricity, running water and other “things” we would call necessities. It’s unbelievable, the disparity.

With all that being said, I’m looking forward to finishing off this book even more than when I began. It should prove an interesting read. I look forward to seeing what approaches Latin American liberation theology might have as a response to capitalism run rampant.

[1]:http://www.amazon.com/Liberation-Theology-After-End-History/dp/0415243041/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208925634&sr=8-1
[2]:http://www.amazon.com/Torture-Eucharist-Theology-Challenges-Contemporary/dp/0631211993/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208925688&sr=1-1