A Calm Assessment of Socialism
For some on the left, socialism is the answer to economic injustice. For some on the right, socialism is a stifling pathway to poverty. A reason for this disconnect is differing definitions of socialism. For the left, socialism is a share of the wealth program. For the right, socialism is governmental domination of a country’s economy. I will discuss both sides from my perspective. My Dad often said, “A little socialism is a good thing.” As a family we have eased the financial strain of some members without strictly giving each what they deserve. We have an LLC in which we share ownership. We own some things in common and we share in revenue. On a larger scale, I am impressed by the Southern Ute Tribe who share the revenues from their natural gas income. I am envious of their Boys and Girls club in Ignacio and wish we had one in Delta, Colorado.
During my college anthropology course, I found that Margaret Mead considered socialism an offshoot of Christianity. The book of Acts describes the early church as holding things in common, perhaps as an extension of Jesus and the Twelve who appeared to have a common purse. However, both were temporary devices to facilitate intensive teaching. They were voluntary—not operated by a government. As soon as believers numbered in the several thousands they abandoned common ownership, although enclaves remain in communes and monasteries through today.
Christian socialism is voluntary and limited in scope. Limited in scope means that it occurs in a context. It is not the underlying driver of an economy. When the Old Testament prophet envisioned the Messianic Kingdom, he said people will build houses and dwell in them. They will plant vineyards and eat the fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them or plant and others eat (Isaiah 65:21-22). The structure of a prosperous nation is such that people can predict if they work they will be rewarded. The principle did not change in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul warned believers that “If a man will not work, he shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The Plymouth colonists nearly starved as they began with a socialist system, but prospered as they adopted the rule endorsed by Paul.
The left considers socialism to be an income producer and therefore an economic engine. I believe that Christian socialism can contribute to the prosperity of people. When I served on the Colorado Board of Human Services, I justified my conservative presence there to keep state expenses reasonable, but also to help small businesses. What do small businesses need most? Customers. Our clients were not savers. They spent their assistance, often at small businesses. So sharing-the-wealth socialism can contribute to raising of income levels beyond those who are direct recipients. The argument is made that the voluntary criteria of Christian socialism can be met through democratically elected officials. I agree so long as representative decisions are made judiciously.
There is a tipping point where socialism becomes a burden. When it requires a large and expensive bureaucracy to administer, a socialist program is no longer a service to a nation. Hitler called his organization the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or Nazi for short. The common goal he organized was to militarily dominate Europe and beyond. That was too ambitious a program for the German people to shoulder and the German economy crumbled under its weight. Hitler and Stalin exemplify the definition of socialism as domination of the many by the few. Hitler constricted freedom through his intimidating Nazi party and SS. Ten percent of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ population in the form of the communist party dominated the rest. Under the banner of socialism, Venezuela’s Maduro and Cuba’s Castro led their countries to financial ruin. Some on the American right use those examples to demagogue against any share-of-the-wealth program, even though the United States already has numerous programs that are socialist in that sense, including a graduated income tax structure, food stamps, assistance for disabled, and child welfare programs, which includes public education.
The other tipping point where socialism becomes destructive is when it takes away individual incentive to produce. It may seam just to take from the rich and give to the poor, but to deny a person the fruit of their labor is unjust. We cannot produce justice by injustice. Skinner was right when he said that people can be managed by rewards that people desire. His principle is similar to Isaiah’s and Paul’s. There is an important place for some transactional leadership, which is based on material rewards. Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was notorious for shortages because there was no incentive for anyone to produce those commodities until he offered special incentives. Leftists are not reasonable when they propose to reward idleness, deny rewards for productive behavior, and then call it a crusade for justice.
To begin a civil discussion of any more socialist programs, American leftists must begin with a recognition that wealth is generated through private ownership, profit, free enterprise, investment, and development of resources. Wealth must be generated before it can be shared. Socialist programs must be affordably managed. For example, the earned-income credit for people with very low incomes is managed by the Internal Revenue Service with little extra work from processing regular income tax forms and refunds. When Kristine and I worked long hours on the family ranch for low wages, the earned income credit each spring was a blessing. We spent it at local businesses.
The American medical system is extremely complicated—more so because much of it is already socialized. We must be careful not to drown people in high costs either through fees or taxes. To promise free medical treatment is a scam because it always costs someone. The idea is to distribute the costs in such a way that patients remain responsible while expanding their options.