Socialism is having a “cool kids” moment. The generation that did not know Eastern Europe is in school and is tired of the corporate cronyism of our times. They are right to be mad, sadly they have picked the wrong solution: socialism.
Socialism is a very, very bad idea. Last century, atheists picked a form of socialism, communism, to govern several nations. The result was a blood bath and the worst abuses of human rights in history: millions dead in Russia, China, Cambodia, and many other states.
The good news is that not all forms of socialism are communism. In fact, Christians were deeply involved in developing West European forms of socialism. You can be a Christian and a socialist, you just should not be.
Given the popularity of Senator Bernie Sanders, it is worth exploring further why a Christian should reject socialism. First, we should clear up a few misconceptions. Second, I will respond to some criticisms to my piece from perfectly sensible people.
Socialism is not easy to define. Vox tries to, but really succeeds in showing only one thing: socialism is so factional that it is worst than being a Baptist. Socialists split over everything and hate the other socialists worse than republicans such as I am!
Socialism has a violent history of socialists killing other socialists, shunning other socialists, or at least shouting at other socialists. Why a fully adult Bernie Sanders would cling to the name is a mystery, but let’s get rid of few misconceptions.
Sanders is not (thank God) a communist.
The standard view of “democratic socialism” has been ownership of the “means of production” by either the state or the community. The idea of “community” ownership is pretty vague and it often works out to be government by another name. Sanders has rejected government ownership of the means of production, but that might be a bit coy. What about the community? Do I own my business or in a “super eminent domain” does the community have a more fundamental right to all property?
In Western Europe, the socialists kept failing to gain and hold power under such a platform so many “broadened” to allow for free markets, but “controlled” free markets where profits and decisions would be guided by the government. Even modified in this way, socialist parties were most successful in the 1970’s and have faded as socialist entities. Many will pass popular government programs (like medical care), but then they find it very difficult to pay even for those programs. Nationalizing industries did not work anywhere and “collectives” are also generally a bust. There are theoretical alternatives, but “socialism” in practice has been monstrous (in communist forms), unsuccessful (in most of the world), or has tried to disguise ultimate objectives with more palatable rhetoric.
Remember: Western Europe is the best case. In most places, Sanders socialism failed very badly. This suggests that if you start with a rich country, you can get away with socialism for a time. Singapore rejected socialism. Other nations tried it. Singapore was poor and is now rich.
Weak socialists now say they do not want to own the “means of production” merely argue for “social justice.” Of course, social justice has generally meant a radical expansion of government power and regulation of the free market. Even so, Western Europe has moved back from even this sort of program as debt has crippled the chance to expand such states. Angela Merkel is no socialist, even if she will work with them. Denmark has some aggressive social programs (and we could debate their virtue), but has moved very far away from socialism and back towards a more free market orientation.
Sanders socialism takes money (democratically) to achieve “justice” where justice is some degree of equality of outcome. If you doubt this, listen to Sanders. Wealth at a certain level is “obscene.” We should take it. Some level of equality of living standard is just. Who decides?
This will come down to the state deciding and this has never been a friend to soul liberty. Equality of outcomes is neither Biblical nor prudent nor just.
This brings us to a big mistake American apologists for socialism make. They assume all government spending or programs are forms of socialism. This is quite wrong or the army could be viewed as being one socialist experiment! Outside of extreme libertarians, all traditional liberals (conservatives in American politics) think the government has some jobs to do. Ronald Reagan thought that a strong social safety net was one of them.
I keep meeting people who think that if government does one thing that it must do everything. One need not be a Rand libertarian to think that government has a limited role, does some things well, but it not good (in a huge country) at dealing with individuals. Government programs are “one size fits all.” We are individuals, not the same.
What is the difference between some government spending and socialism?
Money in a free enterprise/traditional system belongs to you. Over time, thinkers like the Christian apologist and philosopher John Locke saw that with the consent of the governed, government could take some of our money to use for the common good. This is a good thing. The question is: how much? Notice that this is not socialism. Most socialists say your property is not yours. Society lets you (generously) keep a great deal of it, but can ask for it to achieve goals.
Even it the weakest form, Senator Sanders’ socialism begins with the presumption that the good things you make with the effort are not yours by right.
Why does this matter? Both a traditional “liberal” (modern conservative) and a socialist can take your stuff by democratic means. Aren’t we just arguing definitions?
We are and the definitions matter. Imagine if you had to vote for two candidates:
Sue is pro-life and would ban abortion because she believes women have no right to their bodies.
Jill is pro-life and would ban abortion because she believes women have a right to their bodies, but the right to life of the baby is more important.
I would never vote for Sue, but I would vote for Jill. In day to day politics, Sue would be quick to take women’s rights, Jill slow. Jill is better even if both are running on the same platform. Sue does not acknowledge a fundamental right: the right of a person to her body.
In the same way, suppose two candidates:
Bernie wants free college because you have a right to college and society has a claim on your wealth that trumps any right to private property.
Hillary wants free college because she thinks most American tax payers would prefer sending their money to the government to use for college for their fellow citizens.
The outcome on the single policy is the same, but Bernie will be much more likely to take money or increase government power than Hillary. The worry about socialism seems to be just about “words,” but then the First Ammendment is “just words.”
Why does a Christian care about this?
We care because government has the power of the “sword.” They can force obedience. The larger government grows, the more someone’s morality must be enforced in day to day decisions. In a big country, that will amount to oppression of minority points of view. This is already true of pacifists who are tolerated but have to pay taxes for the armed forces. To grow government is to increase these areas of profound tension.
Since a Christian must obey God rather than government, the larger a government grows, the harder our task to be faithful.
There are bigger problems with socialism.
Following the Bible, you must not use your money for evil. The rich should not break agreements with the poor, but the poor must not covet the wealth of the rich. You must not favor the rich or the poor:
You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.
In fact, the Old Testament was so strong on the right to personal property (do not steal, do not covet property) that by New Testament times a new error had arisen. People believed being rich was a sure sign of God’s favor. When Jesus said that it was hard for a rich man to go to Heaven, His students did not say: “Look! A new economic system!” They said: “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus’ followers were confronted with the fact that being rich was not special. Rich people were not to be favored. In fact, we should give to the poor and treat them as equals. We must feed the. poor and help them. In the Kingdom, it can be blessed to be poor! Nobody should love money or they will commit many evil acts.
No Christian would wish to deny any of this. The problem with socialism is not the good it does. To the extent the poor are fed, we rejoice. To the extent people get medical care, we are glad. These are good things.
The difficulty is that Christian socialism moves from a command for me (or the Church) to do a thing to a command for society to do a thing without any Biblical basis for the change. Few Americans think all bad things should be illegal (take adultery, please) or that all good things should be mandated by law (going to Church). In the same way, we must love the poor. The question is how best to do it.
Western European socialism is a warning. Some of it embraces communism as a growing state tempts people (never nice old souls like Senator Sanders, but their followers) to tyranny in the name of “justice.” Some of it simply becomes a soft tyranny that in the name of “justice” begins to require that all people live their life a certain way at work or at play. This may feed people, but it saps their liberty too. Where do the Amish fit in such a scheme? Is it any wonder they ended up moving here? A less intrusive state found it easy to leave them alone.
Western European nations are (generally) so tiny and homogeneous that the best are useless in comparison to the United States. Denmark has half the population of Georgia. It is homogeneous and does not have to defend herself. Essentially we keep her sea lanes clear and her skies safe. Norway is the same size with oil riches. This is like saying what works for Alabama (just under five million) would work for the USA!
Of course, West Europeans have (on the whole) a lower standard of living and serious issues paying for their social programs. To the extent socialism was tried in Western Europe, Americans should be dubious about the results.
This is not because we should do nothing. America has done better than most nations in terms of equality with the exception of racism. We need a deep focus on racial justice and, perhaps, some form of more aggressive up lift. We need more private spending on the poor.
The final response I get is: we tried free enterprise and look what a nightmare we are.
This is simply false. America is prosperous and with only a few exceptions (in nations that are tiny and that we defend) every American is rich. To be born here is to win the global lottery. Let’s spread our way of life, not change it. Let’s correct the problems at the edges, not spark a revolution. Things are not so bad by historical standards.
All of that sounds like I do not know there is poverty. I know it and hate it. I want to see everyone prosperous. However, socialism has never achieved this in a large, diverse, nation without stripping liberty or treating the rich unjustly.
If I give, then we are both blessed. If you take my money and make me give, then nobody is blessed. Charity becomes a transaction. Jesus did not make the rich young ruler sell all he had . . . he gave him liberty to choose. The rich man chose badly and the Son of God let him. Jesus did not ask all rich people to “sell all.” That is not Biblical. . . it is an extraordinary gift which my church honors in monastic callings. Just as not all are called to celibacy (the better way!), so not all are called to voluntary poverty. If you are, then you should. If you are not, then do not.
Can you be a Christian and be for some weak form of socialism? Sure, but I lack the faith.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In