catapult magazine

in an attempt to keep the discussion on “wartime budget” going in a budgetary direction, i’m starting this discussion to talk about something mrsanniep briefly touched on over there.

she said:

my question is, couldn’t you pretty much twist that sentiment to say, “capitalism and christianity are completely irreconcilable, although, when looking at most north american christians, it’s very easy to confuse the two.”

i’m not arguing that either are perfect, both are flawed because of human greed (for power or money). but i think it’s far too easy to just completely discount either.

I guess I don’t completely understand how the correspondence between socialism and Christianity can be completely tossed aside? Maybe someone can explain it to me?

I fully realize that neither perfect socialism nor perfect capitalism (in their most pure forms, if indeed either can be considered ‘perfect’) is possible in this world. That due to human sinfulness, any type of ideology will always end up distorted.

But isn’t the very underlying philosophy of socialism extremely close to Christian thinking and approach to life? I mean, the motivations and actions behind the two seem completely reconcilable to me.

I couldn’t imagine myself being a Christian and NOT being a socialist. That’s what I’m saying. But, just my opinion.

(dare I say this? i think the most Chrisian way to live would be in pure communism. Utterly impossible….. but exciting to think about.)

I know I’m going to get called on this, so let me add this qualification before that occurs:

I do not and cannot ever accept socialism’s idea that humans are essentially good.

However, I place great stock in its belief that all humans deserve equal opportunity, and that it is the responsibility of those of us who have power in some way or another to ensure that this indeed happens.

“European liberalism in general, and even our Russian liberal dilettantism, has long and frequently confused the final results of socialism with those of Christianity. This wild conclusion is, of course, typical. Incidentally, it turns out that socialism is confused with Christianity not only by liberals and dilettantes, but along with them, in many cases, by gendarmes as well – I mean foreign ones, of course.” Ivan Fyodorovich in the Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Socialism is based on an aetheistic philosophy. Christianity is based on the deity of Jesus Christ. To be a socialist means you trust the government to be all-powerful and “take care of the people.” The state views itself as God, as the ultimate authority. The Communist Manifesto calls for abolishing family, marriage, countries and religion, as well as private property. The state determines what is right and wrong. There are no competing loyalties to God, family or country.

Marx said in the Communist Manifesto, “Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached, in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church.”

I believe, however, that the Bible endorses private ownership, which many people use as a basis for a “Biblical endorsement” of capitalism. But because the Bible also endorses mercy, feeding the poor and helping the weak, capitalism is only part of the answer, in my mind. The Biblical way is not capitalism, because under the profit decision matrix, capitalism does not feed the poor or help the weak. The Biblical way is not socialism, either. It doesn’t allow for private ownership or give me the choice to invest my income how I’d like.

The Biblical way is a combination of the two – of allowing private ownership and yet instructing us to show mercy, help the poor and give to the weak with our material blessings AS WE SEE FIT, not because the government took it by force and gave it to whomever it desired.

I think anyone who thinks socialism and communism are ideal philosophies under which to live as a Christian have never actually lived under them … and are getting a bit too romantic about them.

Kudos, mrsanniep, for a well-researched and -written argument. In fact, I agree with a lot of what you said. I agree that the Biblical way is neither capitalism nor socialism, because both ideologies are infused with human sinfulness.

However, I still believe that in this time and this place that we’re in, socialism still tends toward a more equalizing and compassionate society. If North Americans didn’t constantly struggle with individualism, perhaps capitalism would be a more appropriate way of life. But as it is, it is hard enough already to get North Americans out of focusing on their own imagined needs.

You are right—although I did grow up in Canada, I don’t consider myself as having lived under a socialist philosophy. But I plan to. Iceland, although an expensive place to live, has the lowest unemployment rate in the world. Icelandic people read more books per person than any other country in the world, and are highly educated. I’m still investigating, but I haven’t yet found any of the regime or extremist forcing of government that you speak of.

To flip the argument back, I doubt any proponents of capitalism have lived in projects or grown up without a chance at even having a good elementary school education.

I think, sometimes, that as Christians we take our right of private ownership a bit too seriously. Are we really capable, as individuals, of doling out our money “as we see fit”? I really mean that, in the most practical way of speaking. I do not condone seeing the state as a God-like figure, but are people really going to gather together as individuals and decide to help out the less fortunate without some prodding?

Pure socialism is not Christian. It sees only the community and ignores the individual. Pure capitalism isn’t Christian, either. It only acknowledges the individual. What is needed is a political theory that acknowledges the individual for what she is and the community for what it is.

Here is a good article on Kuyper’s “Third Way.” I think it makes some good points.

http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2002_spring/heslam.html

I will add this. I think that a lean in the socialist direction is not a bad idea. I only feel this way because individualism seems to have its scrawny hands firmly grasped around our big, fat necks.

Hear, hear, ByTor. I would add that many of us don’t even realize that we’re being throttled by individualism—and perhaps don’t realize that many cultures around the world have no sense of such individualism as we find in America. Many Middle Eastern peoples, for example, think of themselves only in terms of their relationships—to spouses, parents, siblings—rather than who they are as individuals. If American culture were more community-oriented, perhaps the idea of socialism would be more palatable to us. Capitalism and individualism seem to be inherent in American society, which may make it more difficult for us to look at these “isms” objectively.

And on private ownership—I don’t think our great challenge, as Americans and Canadians (as Westerners, even), is fighting for private ownership. In Western society that’s assumed. A far more relevant challenge is to help those less fortunate than we, and I agree with SARAH, that we probably aren’t going to do that without some prodding. If we could trust our government to take a portion of our income and use it on people who really need it, why need that be a problem? (But I suppose that’s an idealistic viewpoint, and idealism has little to do with the actual workings of the government . . . )

I simply don’t agree that the government should be able to take a portion of our earnings and just apply it to social programs at its own discretion. Heck, I won’t give money to the “melting pot” United Way or buy any Paul Newman food product because of the ambiguous “all proceeds donated to charity.” WHAT CHARITIES? Why would I give my money to another individual, assuming they know better than I do, where to put it? Whether we do it ourselves or the government does it, PEOPLE are still making the decisions and appropriations and yes, people are fallible, but I’d rather make my own mistakes. I don’t want to inadvertently fund a “charity” that makes abortion more accessible or promotes other ideologies and lifestyles I find morally wrong. Which is exactly what happens when you allow the government – or any other person – dole out your money as it sees fit.

And if I’m selfish and need prodding and don’t give as I should, I answer to God, not the government. Which is enough incentive for me to give as I should.

i tend to agree with your sentiment, annie, even though i lean more towards the left politically. ideally, churches should be taking the lead on a lot of things that they don’t. caring for the poor, for example. although a lot of churches and church-related organizations do great work, they don’t usually have the funding to do everything needed (usually because of north american individualism evident even in christians).

but what about things like social security? i’m self-employed, so i’m nailed for social security payments every year. still, i like the idea of having some sort of mandatory care guaranteed for our elderly. not everyone can save for retirement.

also, i wouldn’t be completely opposed to national healthcare, either. i struggle to be able to pay for health insurance and it bothers me that so many people in the united states (over 40 million) live without any health insurance at all.

does that mean i think the government should be in charge of people’s health and well-being? no, but i do think the government could play a role in funding these things. of course, that’s when the beaurocratic nightmare of government comes in. but i don’t have time for that just now . . .

oh yeah, i had a question for you, annie. do you not trust any charitable organization because of fallible human invovlement? or do you like charities to be well-defined to the point where you know exactly where your money is going?

just wondering . . . .