What’s so bad about socialism?
I’m half laughing to myself as I write this title and half cringing. Why? Because I know the majority of people who read this blog really just want to see pictures and hear what is new with Rachel and I, and we always seem to write these broad sweeping arguments that maybe in the end aren’t that helpful, but that we enjoy talking and thinking about. Now I’m wondering if I should go on, but let me just say that this does tie in to our lives, as Rachel and I have recently just read Animal Farm. I guess in the end no one is making you read this, so if this is interesting read on, if not, then don’t, and I promise we’ll put up more pictures soon (they are all on facebook anyway).
I was playing nintendo as the Cold War ended. Therefore I didn’t really experience a time, where I could see some of the horrors of socialist or communist governments. Therefore when people in the States cry out about how certain socialist policies are creeping into government, I think, “yeah so? I like buying my fruit and veggies from the local co-op.” Therefore I think I must claim, that I am largely ignorant, as most of us are about most issues. But that being said I think it’s always good to ask questions.
So it seems like Americans who were in a generation above me, don’t like the idea of socialism. Reading Animal Farm was interesting because really it shows how bad socialism can be (at it’s worst) even though Orwell was a huge proponent of it himself. In this day and age where capitalism seems to be falling apart all around us, I think it’s fair for us young people to ask, “What’s so bad about socialism?” And ok maybe not, extreme socialism like the USSR or China, but what about a little socialism, like Australia and Canada? You know what the health care system over here is pretty darn good. A while back I was sick, so I called up a doctor and made an appointment to see one an hour later at a local clinic down the road. I went in, handed them my Medicare card, waited for twenty minutes, saw a doctor and was given a prescription. I took the prescription to the pharmacy next door, waited ten more minutes, paid ten dollars and went home. Am I really supposed to think this is worse than what we have in the States?
There are some ideas about socialism that are quite nice. There is more equality for the poor. More services available for everyone. Treats people like human beings regardless of what kind of person they are. There are some really nice things about capitalism too, in that there is incentive to work hard, find and create new ideas.
All I’m proposing is that a little bit of socialism might not be a bad thing. In fact there are parts of it, PARTS of it, that almost seem Biblical. Didn’t the early church share all possessions and food amongst themselves and with the poor? Didn’t God create jubilee, the great year of cancelling debts? Isn’t it God who gives the same wages whether you started working at daybreak or late in the day?
I think if the current “Occupy (your city)” has told us anything, it’s that a lot of us (and yes maybe the younger generation who granted, has had a bit easier life, and hasn’t had to work quite as hard as the generation before) are starting to think, ”There’s got to be something better than this.”
And no the answer isn’t socialism. The answer is Jesus living through the hearts and souls of his people. But I suspect that if Christians are to act like Christ would, from time to time we are going to be doing things that people might label as socialist. And again I ask, what’s so bad about that?
By the way, this really is a great book.
Orwell wasn’t critiquing socialism inherently; as you note, he was a socialist for most of his adult life, and an ardent, public promoter of socialism. Animal Farm and 1984 are cautionary tales about the dangers not of socialism per se, but of totalitarianism. As Orwell makes explicit in the 1984, the superstates have *all* produced societies that are functionally identical, despite having differing underlying philosophical roots.
November 22, 2011 at 1:11 am
Yeah, I guess the point of the book was that eventually the farm became what it originally hated, and thus “socialism” was quite short lived or never really had a chance. I think Orwell’s best case for socialism or at least some form of it is “Down and Out in Paris and London.” Another really great book.
November 22, 2011 at 8:11 am
,,,Hippy,,,
;-p
November 22, 2011 at 1:22 am
From you, I’ll take that as a compliment.
November 22, 2011 at 8:07 am
Re: Socialism never really had a chance…
But the common mistake people make is in trying to use Orwell to justify that point. Folks don’t tend to understand the history. This will sound – to non-marxists – like I’m splitting hairs, maybe, but go with me on this for a minute.
The problem you have with Soviet communism isn’t Marx per se (or you may have any of several structural problems with Marx, but that’s a different question) but with Stalinism. Folks mistake the implementation for the philosophy.
If I put it to you – given the current evidence of my home country – that small-r, republican representative democracy as the basis for electing the legislature and the executive branch, and a (barely, in most cases) regulated capitalist economy is inherently flawed, would you ask me to cite my evidence? I could, for example, cite:
- The PATRIOT Act
- Guantanamo
- warrantless wiretapping
- structural unemployment (i.e. a more or less permanent underclass built into the system) …
and so on, and so on…
Would it then follow that the founding principles of that representative democracy are inherently flawed? I’d argue here that one doesn’t really follow from the other. The current US and the *intended* US are arguably quite different. Does that mean that the founding principles are flawed, or does that mean that the present implementation has gone wrong?
Make no mistake: I *am* a Marxist. I *do* critique capital. But *so did Orwell*. It can be a very tricky thing to try and use his work as a practical argument against socialism, because I don’t think it reasonably *is* such an argument.
November 22, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Thanks for the reply. I actually agree with what you’re saying about Orwell. I read him because I like his socialist ideas actually, so maybe I didn’t express myself well enough. I was trying to say basically what you were saying that in the end the farm became something other than socialism all together, as you said totalitarian. That was actually the point of the article in the way, that some people don’t like the word “socialism” maybe because of these incorrect connotations. So I think we’re on the same page, but I may be wrong.
In the end, I guess the overall point I was trying to make was a little more theological than political, as I don’t think political structures in themselves are really an answer to anything. I think Animal Farm may be an example of that, regardless of Orwell’s intent. My main point is rethinking when we are labelling loving actions as “socialist” and thus disassociating ourselves with those actions. Especially as a Christian and for those of us within religious communities I think that’s something that should be re-examined.
November 22, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Oh, half of it could be me misreading you, for that matter.
Given that I’m a godless secular humanist and a commie, hehe it’s likely not much use to debate the theology (and theological debates tend to be pretty abstract, much of the time, in my experience), so I really wasn’t even coming at it from that angle. Given that, it’s pretty likely that I’m seeing something you really didn’t intend, so if that, apologies.
I do think there’s an excellent case to be made that root Christian principles are fairly well aligned with socialism (not to beat the cliche into bits, but there’s an argument in each case to be made that we *are* our brother’s keeper, if that’s not too simplistic).
What I genuinely fail to understand, though, given that is the relatively hysterical response the organized Left gets from the Christian faith community. Hysterical my word, admittedly, so if that’s me being overly dramatic, say so.
It seems that it’s not by accident that Christians in the US that are actively engaged in politics *as a component of their faith* are more likely to lean Right – in most cases, hard right, and it doesn’t make sense to me that it’s just because the Republicans have appropriated the language of faith as a strategy to appeal to a voting bloc. It seems like there’s something much *deeper* at work; is it all just culture war issues? Sure, the organized Left strives to appeal to queers and feminists and folks that sit on the other side of the culture war divide from Pat Robertson (it’s part of why I’m a leftist, no question), but even that seems overly simplistic.
What is it that leads so many Christians, it seems, into this political and market philosophy that says, essentially, if you stumble, it’s not my responsibility to help you get back up?
This is Christian?
November 22, 2011 at 1:42 pm
You have hit the nail on the head with your question. This is the question that I constantly ask myself and sadly I don’t have any good answers for it, except to say on behalf of my religion I apologise.
Perhaps this is the story of Animal Farm. Something that started on good philosophies and principles but has spiralled out of control until it became the opposite of what it claims. But I would say there are many Christians out there who have the same complaints that you mention, and are trying bring it back to its true ideals. While I believe Jesus was a bit apolitical, I think his teachings have extremely political implications which probably fall outside of the rhetoric of right and left. But I think many socialists (or wanna-be ones like myself) will find they have a lot in common with his teachings. Some teachings they would probably find uncomfortable, but as you said there are a lot of us Christians who find them uncomfortable and end up making a “farm” so to speak completely different to the ideals behind it. To pose a question that you posed before:
“Does that mean that the founding principles are flawed, or does that mean that the present implementation has gone wrong?”
November 22, 2011 at 2:22 pm
I dunno what the founding principles of Christianity are, though, and that’s the problem. Which parts of the old and the new testaments are the useful founding principles and which parts are cultural accretions that don’t mean what folks claim they mean? Not to drag out hoary cliches, but I’m sure you’re aware that the Bible has been used to justify all MANNER of social ills, and it continues to be so used even now. I don’t want to be overly hard on you, or anyone, and you’ve been ridiculously kind to take my questions on at face value (I appreciate that), but here’s the problem.
I can go with Marx, because he lays out his first principles and makes his case, progressionally from there. You can agree or disagree with his starting positions (many on the Left do, but that really IS another discussion) or you can argue with his conclusions, but I don’t think one can successfully argue that the case he lays out against capital and against the cultural and political system that it predicates doesn’t have a) actual direct evidence in the real, live culture we’re seeing in the world, or that b) his case is incorrectly argued from a purely rhetorical standpoint.
But you can’t make that case about the Bible, or consequently, the various modern Christianities that emerge from it.
The same book that says I’m an abomination in the eyes of your God also exhorts folks to love me and not sit in judgement of me. But you can’t really have the latter, because the judgement is there, inextricably, in the former.
This is an unresolvable quandry, at least as far as I can see. Christianity is trying to have it both ways. It wants to proclaim itself loving and tolerant – at its option – and disregard love and tolerance when it sees fit.
We humans have made God in the image of our own projected biases and prejudices. It’s not accidental that God conveniently hates all the things we do at any given point in history.
November 22, 2011 at 2:41 pm
I’m aware that there’s a contradiction in my claiming that the ‘root principles’ of Christianity are aligned with socialism, and then claiming I don’t actually know what the root principles of Christianity ‘really’ are, but that’s because I have to allow that I, as an agnostic nonbeliever, don’t really have any skin in the game with regard to how to view any particular part of the Bible, do I?
It’s easy for me to claim that x or y or z, that aligns with my way of looking at the world, is just such a foundational principle, but then, that’s really just a way of me disregarding from the outset, the other parts of the Bible that the aforementioned hard-right-leaning Christians say is their scriptural basis for why they believe.
I have to allow at the outset that I’ve got a set of biases that permits me to favor some bits of the text and disregard others, if that makes sense.
November 22, 2011 at 3:19 pm
You know I could probably say similarly, I don’t really know what the root principles of Marxism are. And yes the Bible is confusing and if any Christian tells you they get it completely I suspect they are not telling the truth. I will say though that the cultural Christianity that you and I take issue with, is a result of bad theology not good. Easiest case and point-The Crusades, the Inquisition- these things were contrary to the teaching of Jesus. And though I can’t lay out a case for the whole Bible, I think there are a few key points, that most Christians should agree on and if they really did, would probably rectify some of those issues that you mentioned.
So founding principles-These are everything attributed to Jesus in the first four books of the New Testament-the Gospels as they are referred to. Good Christian theology says that whatever can be understood about God can most clearly be seen in the words and life of Jesus. Effectively to see Him is to see God. A bit weird yes, but with some compelling reasons. Now here is where I see the majority of problem stems from. People will take two verses, one where Jesus says, “Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you” and then they’ll take another verse in the old testament where the Israelites were commanded to wipe out an ethnic group. And they say this “This doesn’t make sense, but apparently God thinks war is good, thus we think war is good for the US. They default to an unclear verse, when what should happen (in my opinion) is that you look at the two verses and say, the clearest picture I have is Jesus. Therefore I put the old testament verse to the side as either a mystery or incorrect (depending on your view of the Bible) and follow his teaching. What we have unfortunately in (some) Christianity today is a cultural religion that is based on more of these obscure texts that the person they claim to follow. Add a few pigs, a few sheep, a windmill or two and soon the rules on the wall have been rewritten or erased.
Thus I think you can read the gospels with some help from the rest of the Bible and come up with some pretty basic core principles. You mentioned love and judgement and that’s true they are both in there. But the love Jesus gives is to the poor, the outcast, the imprisoned. And his judgment? Primarily against religious leaders and the forces of suffering and injustice in the world.
Anyway this could go on a while, but I would say that you can make a case for Jesus, (not necessarily the Bible- two things I think we Christians often get confused). And I would argue that it would (or has the potential) lead to a level of love that goes far beyond what most ideas of love are. Once again my bias:) but I do think it’s true.
I’d be interested to hear what the main tenants of Marxism are, and find out more how many similarities there are or at least lack of contridictions.
November 22, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Well, this is compressing an awful lot of social and market theory into essentially soundbytes, which I guess is what I’m doing as I’m looking at the Bible in some ways, so I can’t much gripe about having to shove complex ideas into easily-digestible bits when it’s my turn, I suppose. hehe.
Fundamentally, Marx starts with two things: 1. the most useful lens for looking at the world is materialism (Christians often bridle, here, given that the modern understanding of materialism is different from the 19th century use of the term; Marx isn’t saying that matter is all that *can be said to exist* which is a starting point for a modern, atheistic, scientific critique of religion; he’s saying that the most useful examination of the conditions of people has to start with the ways in which society structures itself in order to meet basic – material – needs), and 2. throughout most (nearly all) of human history, societies have oriented themselves around a concentration of capital into the hands of a ruling class that possesses power, because it possesses capital, at the expense of the majority working class, which doesn’t. All social change happens because of the tensions between the two classes.
Eech. This is going to get longwinded. hehe. Sorry about that. It’s almost impossible to start with a statement of principles without first laying out some market theory.
Anyway. Without bogging down in a ton of market theory to actually *justify* a set of principles, here goes:
1. Production for use, not for profit. (We’ll produce what we need, not 35 identical ‘products’ that ‘compete’ in the market)
2. Collective ownership and control of all the various means of production (this is the most divergent point between Marx and the Soviets the Chinese in practice)
3. Unification of the working class, which – under the preceding market tensions of capitalism – is artificially divided along arbitrary lines (sex, religion, ethnicity, etc.) to divide the interests of the working class against itself.
4. Employment, education, healthcare and meeting other material needs as a basic right for all, not a resource to be exploited for the profit of a given company (this is what I mean when I talk about structural unemployment – if everything gets viewed through a lens of ‘market competition’ that inevitably extends to workers competing against each other in a labor market, as well).
5. Modern socialist parties stress freedom of the press, elections, religion, etc. I’d say to explicitly distance themselves from the mistakes of Mao and Lenin (Marx leaves a glaring hole, here, frankly).
An awful lot of what Marx is on about is a really abstruse dissection of market theory and a critique of that theory because he’s writing in a 19th century world that sees craft guilds leading to mercantilism and subsequently to capitalism as the inexorable progress of history. The dissection of market theory will make your eyeballs glaze over, and I dunno how useful it may be.
Easiest points of agreement between Marx and the “social” Christianity I think you’re proposing: collectivism and guaranteed material standards of living (i.e. poverty and homelessness are not acceptable, period, in the same way that in the US, we take as a given that we have a bill of individual rights – freedom of speech, press, etc. Marx is espousing a set of class rights, more or less, if that makes sense).
Prickliest points of disagreement: functionally, religion(s) are an arbitrary, false class distinction that the ruling class uses to pit members of the working class against itself. (This becomes the famous “opiate of the masses” line.) I’m not saying I think religion has no value personally (again, Marx leaves a gaping hole in his rather myopic inability to address cultural freedoms that the modern Left is trying to correct). I’d say here that religions certainly *can* be an opiate of the masses, but are not necessarily so.
November 22, 2011 at 4:51 pm
This is interesting, and as I thought a lot of points of connection. In fact besides that Marxist seems to be a more political framework and Christianity is more spiritual, from what you’ve listed I think there is the possibility of them being compatible. In fact in Latin America, Christianity has taken perhaps a more Marxist leaning with liberation theology, that says basically (and correctly, though dependent upon the means) Jesus came to eradicate all forms of oppression, and it has been used to start revolutions of the lower classes to overthrow the ruling class.
And while I agree that as you say religion “can” be the opiate of the masses, I agree that I don’t believe it is intrinsically and intentionally shouldn’t be. I think if there is any main divergence it is that Christianity would put a big “AND” on the end of Marxism as you outlined and say many things concerning our spiritual reality, that Marxism or socialism wouldn’t address. But again I think something that we Christians have failed to do is link the two together, when Jesus did it very clearly, ie “What ever you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.” Anyway, as I said there are many of us trying to make it right, and hopefully we can have more discussions like this, to see how much we might have in common.
November 22, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Great thoughts Joel … if I published this post I’d run for cover (I agree with it – you’ve got courage!) Hope you and Rachel are well … thinking of you and checking in tonight.
tara for troy too
November 28, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Hey Joel. I was reading through your post and subsequent interaction with Mr. Babble and I came across these words from you:
“They default to an unclear verse, when what should happen (in my opinion) is that you look at the two verses and say, the clearest picture I have is Jesus. Therefore I put the old testament verse to the side as either a mystery or incorrect (depending on your view of the Bible) and follow his teaching.”
I agree with you that many verses in the Bible have been incorrectly interpreted. This is how false doctrine begins. However, you are taking it one step further if you are saying that we ought to cry either “mystery” or “error” when one part of the Bible doesn’t seem to agree with the other and then cast aside the confusing or “old” verse in favor of the clear and “new” one. This is simply not the evangelical way. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you. But you know that passionate about understanding how all the Bible fits together as the entire counsel of God. This is what good Biblical theology is all about.
One other thing. You say that the clearest picture we have of God is Jesus. I agree with you. But you must also admit that Jesus is the one who upholds the entire infallibility of the Old Testament and actually tells his disciples that the Old Testament is all about Him. To say that the words of Jesus somehow render the Old Testament irrevelent is simply not taking into account how Jesus himself saw the Old Testament as being the foundation to all he believed and taught.
December 1, 2011 at 4:54 am
“This is simply not the evangelical way.”
No, it isn’t, and that’s precisely what drives folks like me away from Christianity.
December 1, 2011 at 5:31 am
Hey Brother, thanks for the thoughts. You have probably picked up on some of my questioning I’ve been having of the Old Testament lately which came through. A lot of people in the circles I’m in (who are Christians) hold to the view that much in the OT is an example of the Israelites mis-interpreting God (things like the conquest of Canaan). Though I do have a lot of questions, I don’t think I’m willing to go that far, primarily as you’ve said based on how Jesus read it, and I used his words like, “the scriptures can not be broken” as an example. But to be honest I still find things hard, and so for me, there are some aspects of the OT that I would say are a mystery. I know people have ways of explaining them and I want to look into it more, but I also think sometimes we’re too quick to have an answer when things are quite mysterious. Which comes back to my basic view of Scripture. Jesus is the clearest view of God. If in doubt, default to the Gospels. I know many Christians would not view the Gospels as more important than the rest of the Bible, but in a sense I think they are, and bad theology has happened when Jesus words and Moses words have been put on the same level, clarity-wise, and assumptions are made that end up more like something Moses would say then Jesus. Maybe this is a discussion for a skype chat, because I know you’ve done a lot of OT study that would probably be helpful and I’m interested to wrestle more with this.
December 1, 2011 at 8:52 am
By the way, Joel. I have not heard of any good theologian using Israel’s conquest of Canaan as an argument for how government should be set up today. The best argument for capitalism in my opinion is an argument founded on the doctrine of sin. I agree that capitalism is not the answer to the world’s problems. And I, for one, actually would welcome some changes in the States like universal health care and paid maternity leave for mothers. However, I think you would agree with me that socialism is not the answer to the world’s problems, either. Any Christian who pins his hope in this world on politics is missing the point completely. Our hope should not be in the next president. It should be in the hope and glory of Jesus Christ our risen savior. We are not at home in this world. One of the implications of this is that the Kingdom of God is not a political reality, but a spiritual reality that comes to the world through the church. So neither socialism or capitalism are going to work out in the end as long as this world remains Enemy territory.
December 1, 2011 at 5:09 am
…and a separate point to get to here:
“The best argument for capitalism in my opinion is an argument founded on the doctrine of sin.”
The problem with this position is that it’s essentially Gordon Gecko’s – greed is good? Sure, there’s no shortage of capitalist economic theoreticians from Adam Smith onward who’ve argued this, but at the very least they don’t try to justify it as a matter of biblical theology.
Is a fundamental takeaway from the doctrine of sin *really* the idea that he who accumulates the most marbles wins?
Sure, you’re tossing a few nice things into the mix – healthcare and maternity leave – but neither of these are *arguments for unrestricted capitalism*, which certainly sounds like what you’re arguing for here.
December 1, 2011 at 5:40 am
Good theologian no. Theologian yes, and in my conversations with people on pacifism the first thing people default to is, “But God sanctioned war in the OT”. I completely agree with you though, a political structure is no answer to anything, I think because of the doctrine of sin. Though when loving people require political structures to be changed I think that comes under our responsibility as Christians in the work of God, to “put things right”. As a side note, it seem to be around more Christians these days who think Satan doesn’t exist either, which I believe is false. Had a conversation with some work colleagues (Christians) who said the idea of Satan was rediculous. I said “that’s a very Western thing to say.”:)
December 1, 2011 at 8:59 am
“… I think because of the doctrine of sin.”
This gets at the root of what I disagreed with Ben about, as well; it’s a mistake to assume that ANY worldview that takes a ‘default position’ on human behavior will be actually borne out in fact. Human behavior is replete with examples that run the gamut.
Evolutionarily (yeah, run for the hills, the secular commie is citing evolution, hehe) there’s a good, evidence-based argument to make that humans have been successful not because we’re inherently selfish – driven exclusively by individual desire – but because we’re cooperative.
Does this mean we’re *inherently* A or B (selfish or cooperative, or any other sin/not-sin duality one might posit)? No. It means we’re A *and* B.
December 1, 2011 at 10:14 am
Hi Babble,
The doctrine of sin is quite a complex thing, and once again maybe not the most elequently expressed by Christians in the past but it also isn’t as simplistic as you might think. For one thing it also must be seen with the doctrine of “imago dei”- that humans are all made in the image of God, and therefore have the capacity to do good, and this it true not only for Christians. The doctrine of sin primarily relates to interaction with God rather than humans, although there are links. Where as God hopes and desires and designed us to be compassionate, unselfish, cooperative, at some point or other everyone will fail this in some way whether big or little and because of that it severs a connection with God who is completely loving, just, good etc. Yet Jesus comes into the world and says regardless I will reconnect the severence, because God is loving compassionate etc. I think it would be hard to find someone who has never failed to be loving and compassionate at some point and that is what the doctrine of sin means, therefore it is hardly a “mistake” of a worldview, and in this context I think it would be hard if not impossible to disprove.
I think though maybe we’re coming up to some understandings of divergence here, which is fine. And like you said a lot of this comes from a political vs. theological worldview, which may be intrinsically impossible to come to agreement. Like we talked about before I think there is a lot of overlap which we talked about before about what “good” is, but I think the “why” we are or aren’t good is guided by different worldviews. Always good to hear the perspective of a “secular commie” though:).
December 1, 2011 at 1:57 pm
” So neither socialism or capitalism are going to work out in the end as long as this world remains Enemy territory.”
But the problem is that the enemy you’re faulting isn’t just your theology having posited Satan; that enemy is me, and folks like me – Pat Buchanan’s rhetoric of culture war back in the 80′s was apt, which is why I specifically brought it up in response to the christian right.
December 1, 2011 at 5:33 am
Mr. Babble, I think you are putting words in my mouth. Nowhere in my post did I say that I was all for unadulterated capitalism. And nowhere in my post did I say that human beings are my enemy. I believe that an argument for capitalism can be made from the Bible based on the idea that we are all broken human beings and tend towards selfish decisions and are corrupted by power. I would rather have power in the hands of many than in the hands of a few. The Bible says that we are broken and tend to act in selfish ways if left to our own devices. This is why it is my opinion that any government system will ultimately falter if the fundamental problem in the world, sin, remains. Capitalism is not the answer. Far from it.
December 1, 2011 at 7:27 am
“Mr. Babble, I think you are putting words in my mouth.”
No, I would have if I’d said, “this is what you’re saying…”
I did say, “this is what it *sounds* like you’re saying.” They’re not equivalent.
“Nowhere in my post did I say that I was all for unadulterated capitalism.”
Fair enough. Lots of the christian right *are*, which is the context of my earlier discussion on the matter.
“And nowhere in my post did I say that human beings are my enemy.”
I didn’t say *you*, individually, did. I said your faith does. Again, that folks on the christian right use the rhetoric of culture war is a) important to address when this issue comes up, since as a communist (and a gay person, and a secular humanist and several other things the christian right has seen fit to declare war on), I most certainly AM the declared enemy and b) it does christians no good to pretend this rhetoric doesn’t exist, simply because some of you don’t espouse it directly, in all fora. It exists. It doesn’t do any good to pretend otherwise…and it’s got undue influence not just on the culture at large, but on christianity itself.
Are you seriously claiming othereise?
“I believe that an argument for capitalism can be made from the Bible based on the idea that we are all broken human beings and tend towards selfish decisions and are corrupted by power.”
I’m not going to debate the theology, since, again, theological debates are rather purely subjective and pointless, but it’s fallacious to claim that humans as a whole are this or that or any other thing. Some or many humans may be selfish, some or even much of the time. Humans are also cooperative and sharing and all sorts of other things that don’t particularly lend themselves to pat generalizations.
“I would rather have power in the hands of many than in the hands of a few.”
Reread my earlier conversation with Joel – you’re confused about what Communism in particular, and socialism more generally, asserts; if you’re using Stalin or Mao as your claimed examples of the architects of idealized socialist states, they’re not, and again, I could easily make flawed claims about representative democracies based on the current actions of the
“The Bible says that we are broken and tend to act in selfish ways if left to our own devices.”
That’s neither here nor there, unless I agree with you that the Bible is a source of truth; obviously, I don’t, so resting on what the Bible say about any particular thing is fine for you personally, but doesn’t particularly get the two of us anywhere if we’re attempting to have a dialectic discussion. Are we? The dialectic – reasonable people can come to common agreement – is another one of those cliches of marxism that folks tend not to really understand.
“This is why it is my opinion that any government system will ultimately falter if the fundamental problem in the world, sin, remains.”
That’s a worldview you’re welcome to hold, but it’s ultimately a position of faith, not fact. I prefer facts I can actually look at and evaluate.
“Capitalism is not the answer. Far from it.”
That, at least, we agree on.
December 1, 2011 at 9:03 am
Mr. Babble. I don’t think we can continue any sort of fruitful discussion, for as you are right to acknowledge, my worldview is dependent upon faith. My epistemology begins with the presupposition that God created this world and has revealed certain things about himself and the way we ought to see the world. If having a “dialectic discussion” means I have no right to explore the possibility of my own presuppositions and comparing them to your own, then this is indeed not possible. God bless.
December 1, 2011 at 5:46 pm
” If having a “dialectic discussion” means I have no right to explore the possibility of my own presuppositions and comparing them to your own,”
Oh, goodness, Christians claiming that their rights have been denied, when they represent some three-quarters of the population at large is precisely the kind of culture-war rhetoric I’m talking about. You’re right – you’re not going to be able to discuss ANYTHING without this veering off in the usual sorts of tiresome silliness, it would seem.
In any event, given that you’re not going to address it without being hysterical, it seems, I’ll just reask the question you’re ducking in the hopes that Joel or somebody else will at least address it more directly, since it’s worth asking, I think.
How, exactly, does one make a sin-based argument FOR capitalism?
If it’s a) sin is bad, b) being greedy is a sin, c) don’t sin, fair enough, but that’s not actually an argument FOR capitalism (this is why I asked) AND that doesn’t address the root problem. As I said, oh, several posts ago, what is it, exactly, that leads so much of the Christian Right, given even this latest, into a market and cultural philosophy that says, essentially, if you fall, it’s not my responsibility to help you back up? If your argument is sin is something to be avoided, I do not understand how Christians are making a sin-based argument, here. Fine, Ben doesn’t seem to care enough to explain, and he’s not required to, but taking your ball and leaving is a silly move just because I’m honest that it doesn’t constitute a substantive argument *to me* to start with “well, the Bible says…”
I’m not debating what the Bible says; I’m asking a different question. Can you honestly not see that?
Nowly: as for what you’re “allowed” to do: you’re allowed to cite whatever you want, or to rest on whatever you want – and your supposed ‘rights’ have not been abriged in any way. What I am saying is that it’s worth remembering that the rest of the world doesn’t always agree with you just because you think the Bible is a good idea; this doesn’t say you’re not “allowed” (can you even begin to see how loaded your language is?) to think so; it does say, if you’re specifically trying to engage communists and socialists (how do you think I found the post, in the first place?) that it’s not particularly useful to try and use the Bible as a moral trump card in any given discussion, which is certainly what it sounds like you’re doing when you claim that neither A or B in the secular world is going to be successful in the end, and instead the ‘answer’ is rooted in your particular faith.
That’s not useful in a pluralistic society where other folks are allowed to practice other faiths, or no faith whatsoever, if *the goal is for everybody to find areas of common agreement*. Are you claiming, here, that common agreement between christians and nonchristians is ultimately impossible? I hope not, but I suspect so, an awful lot of the time.
December 1, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Hey Joel,
I’m aware that some or much of what I’m using as examples necessarily oversimplifies the concept of sin, but that’s because I’m trying to avoid an awful lot of digression that I dunno will be particularly useful to discuss in the first place. Moral theory gets awfully abstract awfully quickly, and my goal isn’t to discuss moral theory in the abstract in the first place. It’s to get folks moving on practical issues in the real world (I’m aware of, for example, things like liberation theology which you cited earlier, and I generally support its goals where it’s concerned as a matter of faith of raising standards of living among the desperately poor, among other things).
I’m not trying to paint an incorrect picture of faith; I’m compressing for brevity. I’ve tried to be fair (I’ve done similar compressions of Marx), but honestly, christianity is as much at fault here. Folks cherry-pick bits of scripture to support doing whatever they want to do personally, an awful lot of the time, and we end up with folks saying, “Well, I don’t have to pay taxes to support the lazy unemployed, now do I?”
Is that an oversimplification of a necessarily more complex issue? In some senses, sure.
Does that mean it’s untrue? I’d argue no. The Right appropriates the language of faith *precisely to argue just these sorts of things* and to appeal to persons *of* faith in order to do it. (This is exactly where I agree with Marx about opiates and masses.)
December 1, 2011 at 11:04 pm
I think this is coming back to what we were talking about before. If by Christian you mean the religious right, that yes Christians are at fault. In agreement with you, there is an incongruity with the practices of the religious right and principles of Jesus. I would agree too, that I’m for practical issues and not abstract, as long as you will allow me the spirituality that informs my practicality. In response to your question below, I don’t think there is any Christian argument for capitalism. At least not a good one. So yes I think we agree there are issues. Where do we go from there? Well discussions like these for a start, and those of us within the Christian community which are trying to point out the same issues you are raising Mr. Babble and hopefully get things back on track. I do believe that Jesus can add a fuller dimension to this. You may disagree but that’s ok. I hope it doesn’t stop us working together for principles we both see as important. I don’t doubt that there are things we can learn from each other.
December 3, 2011 at 1:11 am
Joel, let me take a quick stab at a Christian argument for capitalism, since you do not think that such an argument exists. Feel free to pick it apart. (I am sure Mr. Babble will feel obligated.) By the way, I am defining capitalism here as a system that supports free markets, competition and private ownership. (I suppose there are a lot of definitions and versions of capitalism, so I want to make it clear what I am NOT arguing for.)
So, here it goes. Capitalism seems to best take into account the reality of original sin. In other words, capitalism isn’t preferable because people make good choices in a free economy. No doubt many bad and selfish choices do occur within capitalism, which we have seen recently. Rather, it is preferable to pure socialism because humans are fallen and can’t be trusted to arbitrarily distribute wealth equally. Just as with democracy, I would prefer power to be distributed among the many rather than the few. Original sin says that both socialism and capitalism depend upon the inherent goodness and badness of people. Since I belive that all people tend towards badness, I would rather live in a system that distributed that involved a free market and competition to somewhat constrain and correct that badness. Note here I am not saying that capitalism is perfect, because you are still dealing with bad people ultimately who are making selfish decisions. However, as I said before I would rather have bad people milling around in a free market than I would at the top of some socialist system. On a side note, you could also argue that capitalism best enables the human mind to create. To quote another Christian writer, “When humans make something out of nothing, or when we make the same something more efficiently, we show forth the image of God in us.”
There you go. Probably not a great case but a case which does at least attempt to use the doctrine of original sin as its foundation.
On another note, I think it is important for me to state that in a society of good people making good choices, perhaps socialism would be much better. This is why our belief in the inherent goodness and badness of people makes a big difference in where we side on this issue. If Mr. Babble believes that people are inherently good, then he will ridicule all of this badness talk as nonsense.
December 3, 2011 at 7:10 am
Oops, I just realized that you do accept that a bad Christian argument for capitalism may exist. Well, maybe I have inadvertently proved my point. =)
December 3, 2011 at 7:11 am
Arghh, I mean proved “your” point. Why can’t I edit these things?
December 3, 2011 at 7:12 am
“I think this is coming back to what we were talking about before. If by Christian you mean the religious right,”
I’m aware that it’s dangerous to paint with too broad a brush, but progressive christians are decidedly in the minority, and there are more christians who – albeit somewhat silently, perhaps – agree with the christian right than disagree.
They wouldn’t be a voting bloc worth courting if it was a tiny minority nobody agreed with.
I think all I’m fundamentally asking is for folks to be more honest about that.
“…there is an incongruity with the practices of the religious right and principles of Jesus.”
There’s that, but it isn’t just that.
The divide that exists between the christian faith community and secular folks isn’t folks like me being stubborn and refusing to allow christians the free exercise of their faith and other hysterical things the christian right likes to drone on about.
That same christian right is a vocal minority, sure, but can you see that there are more folks who agree with it within modern christianity than disagree with it? I certainly can. If it was just an incongruity between what folks claim they believe and how they act in general, that wouldn’t be much to worry about – humans do that sort of thing all the time, and christians are hardly the sole offenders, here.
It’s that the christian faith community is a political body, and in very important ways, a dangerous one.
Again, I think all I’m really asking for folks to do is be more honest about that. You and I may disagree on the latter part of that (that you’re dangerous), but can you at least see why I think the former (that you’re every bit as much a political body, with a particular agenda, as a left third party, say)?
There are far more christians who *fundamentally* do not *want* a pluralistic, multi-faith (or no-faith-at-all) society than there are christians who are willing to live within that pluralistic society. (This is why christians tend to scare me.)
“I would agree too, that I’m for practical issues and not abstract, as long as you will allow me the spirituality that informs my practicality.”
How on earth could I possibly deny it? Where this runs off the rails is a) using the Bible as a cudgel in any given discussion, as though what the Bible says on any particular thing should be the end of any debate (again, that ONLY matters if you and I agree that the Bible is a source of truth) and b) claiming that there’s a religiously founded argument for something in the larger, secular world (a sin-based argument for capitalism, say) and then turning around and claiming that it’s not about socialism or capitalism and it’s all about Jesus…that’s a cop-out.
Folks cop out of justifying their politics all the time; that too is human nature.
But be honest about it.
“I do believe that Jesus can add a fuller dimension to this.”
I don’t fundamentally have a problem with that, but the problem is that that only speaks to other persons of (christian) faith. There seems to be an inability among some or many christians to recognize that that experience isn’t universal.
December 3, 2011 at 2:02 am
“In other words, capitalism isn’t preferable because people make good choices in a free economy. No doubt many bad and selfish choices do occur within capitalism, which we have seen recently.”
Not just recently. The socialist critique of so-called ‘free market’ economies makes an evidence based case that such ‘bad choices’ (to use your term) are *structural* – they’re inherent to any system that gives preference to private ownership of the means of production (your understanding of socialism is flawed, if you think it hinges on abolishing private property. Socialism is concerned not with what individuals own, but with the democratic control of the *means of production* and with reorienting production away from profit and toward use).
“Rather, it is preferable to pure socialism because humans are fallen and can’t be trusted to arbitrarily distribute wealth equally.”
This too stems from a flawed understanding of what socialism actually asserts. Generally equal doesn’t necessarily mean *precisely* equal. I’m a proponent of the communist maxim from each according to his abilities and to each according to his work which necessarily implies that standards of living will be based on the amount and kind of work one chooses to perform, and does away with most of the cliches about socialism ‘destroying innovation’ but – importantly – socialism also hinges critically on the first part of that maxim: *to each according to his needs*. As I said earlier, I (and most other communists, socialists and leftists of various stripes) find it unconscionable that we can find plenty of money to fund a spiralling ‘defense’ budget, and decry things like guaranteed minimum standards of living for the entire citizenry. Read carefully, please; I’m not saying that’s a guaranteed *maximum* standard of living (although I do support aggressive taxation above certain income levels to prevent insane concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few persons, but we’ll get to that later on in your comments).
“Just as with democracy, I would prefer power to be distributed among the many rather than the few.”
Capitalism in no way supports this. Even regulated capitalist economies concentrate wealth (and attendant political power, given capitalism) in the hands of an overarching ruling minority; this isn’t just commie rhetoric. This is borne out by the ample evidence of history.
A communist critique (although not necessarily all socialist critiques) says that this, too, is structural (inherent in the system; social democratic parties tend to hedge and want to liberalize capitalism rather than replace it outright). In any event, we have history on our side when we assert that capitalism shows every sign that it works at cross purposes to precisely this, if this is your stated goal, and there’s simply no good, evidence-based reason to think it will ever do differently – because it’s had centuries to produce any good evidence of ever having done so, and has failed, spectacularly, thus far.
What capitalism *does* do is concentrate power in the hands of those companies and individuals who control the means of production. This isn’t anything like democratic distribution of power, in any sense.
“I would rather live in a system that distributed that involved a free market and competition to somewhat constrain and correct that badness.”
This isn’t borne out by any actual evidence. For every example you’d like to cite where competition has provided you with products you want to buy at a price you’re willing to pay, I can provide you with a hundred more examples where such “competition” wastes resources, trends toward market contraction (inevitably), creates abuses of human ‘capital’ (that human labor is just another resource to be exploited is an important facet of the socialist critique, that folks often miss as they extoll the virtues of “cheap” commodities – cheap for whom? You as a consumer? That hides much of the real cost), and so on, and so on, and so on.
“Competitive” markets inevitably contract until there are a few, typically sanctioned, de-facto monopolies in nearly any market, and in cases where no single player (or small set of players) can be said to serve as a de-facto monopoly, market collusion (as we see in ‘free market’ healthcare systems, such as the US system) serve essentially the same function.
“Note here I am not saying that capitalism is perfect, because you are still dealing with bad people ultimately who are making selfish decisions.”
This rather does point out a significant divergence between a christian and a humanist view of people. People aren’t inherently anything. They’re people. I do not assert utoptian fantasies about people being inherently ‘good’ (which is, more often than not, socially constructed) any more than I assert christian nihilism that asserts that people are inherently ‘bad’ (‘badness’ being just as much a social construct, dependent easily as much – if not more so – on the prevailing fashions and tastes of the time and place, as a reasoned explication of who a given ‘bad act’ harms and how).
It also rather begs the question of how one can reasonably assert that sin isn’t a method of social control and dominance by religions if sin is more properly to be understood as a disconnection between man and God. This idea that because of ‘original sin’, man is inherently going to trend toward ‘bad, selfish’ decisions is that very method of social control that Marx (among others) have identified time and again. Sin is religion’s attempt to assert control, and not a whole heck of a lot else.
Some of that control is beneficial to the common good (don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t kill people), but much of it is arbitrary and capricious ridiculousness (I am to be stoned until dead, am I?).
“However, as I said before I would rather have bad people milling around in a free market than I would at the top of some socialist system.”
The problem is that you don’t have ‘bad people milling around’ in free market systems. You’re putting them at the top, and keeping them there, because ‘free’ markets provide no disincentive for the very things you’re calling ‘bad behavior’ in the first place. Socialism doesn’t assert that greed is nonexistant; it asserts that humans are simply human – some of that’s good, some of it isn’t, and much of it is simply morally neutral. Capitalism, however, unfairly advantages folks inclined toward greedy behavior, and provides no effective checks against it.
“On a side note, you could also argue that capitalism best enables the human mind to create.”
This is blind faith in capitalism’s capacity to foster innovation. Once again, for every ‘innovative’ act of capitalism, I’ll see your bet and raise you labor exploitation, effective slave labor in overseas manufacturing markets and so on, and on, and on. For every nifty new invention you get to play with having been born into a position of relative privelege compared to the vast majority of the rest of the world, that “innovation” comes with a very real human cost that capitalism is more than content to hide from you, so long as you continue to spend, profligately.
“On another note, I think it is important for me to state that in a society of good people making good choices, perhaps socialism would be much better. This is why our belief in the inherent goodness and badness of people makes a big difference…”
Your thinking is hopelessly binary. Marx doesn’t assert utopian ideas about the proletariat being ‘inherently good’ – just that the proletariat is the vast majority of people, and a system that gives preference to their interests is better – empirically better, in ways that are testable – than a system gives massive, effectively unchecked power to a small, wealth-controlling class.
“If Mr. Babble believes that people are inherently good…”
You’re consistently missing the point. I believe people are people. Calling people inherently ‘bad’ misses that point, just as much as calling them inherently ‘good.’ We’re both, and neither.
“…then he will ridicule all of this badness talk as nonsense.”
It’s to be expected, given the view of the world you’ve (likely) been raised in, and it makes a kind of sense, if one accepts the christian premise of man’s inherently ‘flawed’ nature, but that’s the sticking point. There’s no good reason to accept that premise, and it leads to some dangerously flawed thinking as a result.
December 3, 2011 at 10:15 am
A bit of history may be important – Marx’s original assertion was ‘from each/to each according to his needs’, but Marx was adopting a popular slogan that was getting used at the time in 19th century Europe among labor movements. It’s important to understand the cultural and political background of this idea before folks leap all over it and spin it into fantasies of gulag workers toiling away to benefit the inner parties (yeah, I’m evoking 1984, just to tangentially bring Orwell back into the mix).
The Soviets adapted ‘from each/to each’ to mean work, because they knew they had structural problems that prevented them from realizing Marx’s ideal society – but they believed they were working toward it.
Marx, principally, envisioned from each/to each as only really functioning in a world that had eliminated labor as the prime necessity for the production of things; such a future is dependent on technological advancement in production of food and other basic necessities to make them essentially ‘free’ to produce, from a resource usage/labor usage perspective, and the ‘social contract’ could be significantly reorganized given that in a functioning future socialist state, all of the basic needs are provided as a matter of course (because there’s no particular profit motive for providing them, in the first place). Marx’s vision of the future is one in which accumulation of things has become unimportant, and labor is valued as a goal in itself – folks do meaningful work because it appeals to them, not as a ‘means to make a living.’
The soviet adaptation is important, because as much as it’s important to recognize what they got wrong, it’s equally important to realize what they got right.
No, they didn’t do a particularly good job at raising minimum standards of living to an acceptable level, but they didn’t permit mass homelessness and unemployment, either. Able-bodied folks able to work were expected to, and the state valued the contributions of such work according to the various needs it met in the larger system.
Such a modified system (with better minimum standards) can easily address the common critique that socialism ‘destroys innovation’ – there would still be room for greedy folks to attempt to invent new widgets as a means of getting richer, if your only innovation model is capitalism (I contend this is flawed thinking given capitalism, but that’s a whole other post) – but it places many (*many*) more checks against the abuses of such a system.
December 3, 2011 at 10:47 am
I just wanted to say thank you Babble and Ben for contributing to this discussion. I think I’m going to bow out myself, not for content reasons but merely for time’s sake. Thank you everyone for your thoughts, they have been interesting and I do enjoy a robust discussion. Feel free to continue the debate if you wish.
Cheers
December 3, 2011 at 11:00 am