THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM
Socialism
has become a trending topic in recent years. Usually, one side is adamantly
opposed to it while the other side strongly supports it. Those who have not
lived in or seen societies who have been destroyed by socialism tend to be more
lenient toward its evils. My aim here is to provide a Christian case against
socialism since many of the arguments for it have growingly come from
Christians.
Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community or government as a whole. It is not new; yet, modern socialism is a direct derivative of Marxism, which is a way of organizing society where the workers own the means of production. Marx even proposed that socialism was the next necessary step in the progress of history. My disclaimer is that I am a firm believer in small government (as small as possible). Socialism is diametrically opposed to the small government mindset. Nonetheless, I intend to present a brief Christian case against the dangers of socialism.
Despite Modern Claims, a Defense of Socialism Is Not
Biblical
Many seem to make the argument now that socialism is biblical, Christian, or even that Jesus was or is a socialist. These claims, while containing a certain shock-factor, do not hold the weight necessary to justify them. Certainly, Jesus spoke of helping the needy, the poor, the widows, the orphans, and even paying taxes; yet, Jesus did so in relation to individuals rather than the government. Paying taxes is necessary because obedience to the law is necessary. Nonetheless, to equate such a command with government responsibility to make life better for everyone is a far stretch. When Jesus commands to care for the hungry, the thirsty, and the naked (Matt 25:35-40), his illustration clearly references an individual rather than the government. A government’s primary role is not one which protects the quality of life but rather life itself. The United States Constitution has in mind freedom as its underlying purpose. Quality of life and the pursuit of happiness then belongs to the individual, i.e. if freedoms[1] are protected by the government, the pursuit of happiness is possible. Certainly, issues of justice are replete throughout the scriptures; yet, the responsibility always falls on the individual rather than the government. Thus, to claim that socialism is biblical or that Jesus is a socialist is hermeneutically irresponsible.
Socialism Demands Theft
Prior to 1913, the United States did not have a federal income tax; such became law with the institution of the 16th Amendment. It may come as a surprise to many that the country functioned well without such a tax burden. Moreover, since the implementation of federal income tax and the United States Treasury, both taxes and debt have increased; this is likely not coincidental, for human nature desires even more when more is taken. While Jesus commands his followers to pay taxes, as it is the law (Matt 22:21), his command is not necessarily an affirmation of its wrongness just as his submission to authorities during his crucifixion was not support of what they were doing. If a government’s primary role, both biblically and constitutionally, is to protect the freedoms of its people (which I believe it is), anything over and beyond that obligation requires, at its foundation, theft. Consider the various programs, agencies, and people to whom tax money is paid; it is certainly not for the foundational function of government, i.e. protection of freedom. Tax money, by its nature, is taken from individuals who have earned it, many of who might not otherwise pay for many of the programs government employs. In most other contexts, if money is unwillingly taken from individuals, it is considered theft. Taxes are no different. Taxation, by its nature, is theft. Such a claim has a shock-factor to it; yet, when reasoned, it is sensible. For a society to implement socialism, taxes must increase; therefore, blatant theft must increase. In this way, socialism is not biblical nor right but is, in fact, immoral.
Socialism Neglects Individual Responsibility
Briefly mentioned already, the implementation of socialism demands a neglect of individual responsibility. The Bible and Jesus Christ never discuss social concerns as government responsibilities but rather as those that belong to individuals. Certainly, in the name of protection, governments are to carry out justice. Nevertheless, the tasks of caring for the needy is assigned to individuals. To employ socialism is to take that responsibility away from the individual. Additionally, employing socialism makes it likely that people who benefit from it become complacent in their responsibility to not only offer assistance to the needy but to also hold a sense of entitlement, i.e. because the government provides their needs, they do not feel a sense of urgency to change their situation. Scripture always gives the responsibility of helping those in need to individuals rather than government. Socialism then is not biblical because it often encourages a lack of responsibility.
Socialism: It Sounds Too Good to Be True
A
common adage is this: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Socialism is such an item. Rarely has socialism worked in human history. In
fact, countries and societies where it is implemented currently are still too
new to make a determination on its effectiveness. Largely, however, the
majority of countries who have tried socialism have failed, the effects of
which are seen today, e.g. Venezuela and Cuba.[2]
While socialism shines with its tempting luster, the proven and effective forms
of small government which currently exist have worked the best. Christians
should stand for freedom, for individual liberty, and for responsibility.
Socialism does not support this mindset and is, in fact, opposed to it. To hold
a godly worldview then, Christians should understand the dangers and pitfalls
of socialism.
[1] Freedoms here is broader than many attempt to make
it. Freedoms do not refer to specifics, e.g. marriage, driving, etc. but rather
to the general ability to live life as one wishes without interference as long
as decisions do not impact the rights of others.
[2] Communism is not used interchangeably with socialism
here but is considered to be stalwartly tied.
