That is the title of a blog post by
David Robertson, a minister in the Free Church of Scotland, in which he takes
to task a blog post by Rick Phillips on the web-site of the Alliance of
Confessing Evangelicals (which, by
the way, was entitled ”Is Socialism Evil?—not Satanic). I
agree with Robertson that Phillips goes too far in criticizing socialism. We should not equate
socialism with such evils as racism and government
sponsored torture as Phillips does or with homosexuality and abortion as
Robertson notes others have done. Nor,
should we identify Christianity with our “own politics/ culture and economics”--
as Robertson reports the American brothers and sisters are doing. Neither
socialism or capitalism is the Christian
alternative.
Nevertheless, I believe that
Robertson, himself, also goes more than a wee bit overboard. I suggest that Christians
should speak more nuanced about these economic systems. Moreover, although, the
church should not, ecclesiastically, pronounce on economics systems, we,
as Christians, are (in the footsteps of Kuiper and Schilder) called to apply
Biblical teaching to all areas of life—including economics and politics. Doing
so, I believe that we can derive a
Biblical preference for a free market system although that preference must be
conditional as I have argued for many years.
In this post, I will comment
on Robertson’s criticisms of Phillips. First, however, a discussion of the
terminology of economic systems is in order since they both appear to be
characterizing socialism and capitalism in an extreme fashion.
Economic Systems
Robertson uses the following
“normal” definition of socialism:
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 as a whole.
In his discussion, he,
however, tends to focus on the “or regulated by” part of this definition rather
than on the “owned” part. However, by doing so, not only Scotland, but every
country in the world can be called, socialist! In practice, however, most
countries cannot be classified as socialist or capitalist (I prefer to use the
term free-market since it carries less baggage). Virtually every country in the
world uses a combination of these two systems, i.e. a Mixed Economic System in
which some of the economic decisions are made by the market and some by the
government; all have at least some degree of government regulation and some
government owned industries. Countries can be ranked on a continuum based on
the degree to which the government intervenes in the economy or to what extent
the market is left free to operate--as roughly illustrated below in which we
have a “command “ or “communist” economy at the extreme left.
Command
Economy <----------------------------------------------------------------->Free
Market
North Korea, Cuba,
Venezuela(149), China(113),Russia(102), France(57), Germany(30), Netherlands (25),
U.S (16), , U.K.(10), Australia(10), Canada(5), New Zealand (3), Hong Kong(1).
The above continuum is
derived from the Fraser Institute’s 2016 Economic Freedom Index
with numbers in parenthesis indicating the rank among the 159 countries ranked
and shows some surprising results: e.g. the ranking of the U.S.
The point is, it’s not helpful
to label a country as socialist or capitalist. We can only say one country is
more socialist (government interventionist) than another. Similarly, political
parties and politicians are socialist in comparative degrees. Bernie Sanders is
more socialist than Hillary Clinton who is more socialist than Ronald Reagan
was. The Canadian political party the NDP is more socialist than the Liberals
than the Conservatives. In any case the real issue of importance and debate is
whether in a specific instance government intervention in the economy is better,
more stewardly, than leaving it to the market. For example, should Canada have
government sanctioned supply management of dairy products or should farmers be
free to produce whatever products they want? Does the government need to do
something about unemployment, poverty, climate change etc.? If so, what?
As to Capitalism, Robertson
appears to see it through Marxist eyes according to which a greedy, wealthy
group of “Capitalists” exploited the workers and government was run for the
benefit of those “Capitalists’. While this situation may have existed in Marx’s
days, such is not the case today in most countries. Universal suffrage has significantly
changed the political influence of the wealthy. There is no capitalist system
in effect today that resembles what Marx thought he saw—although this Marxist
thinking still underlies the “us-and-them” “class struggle” that socialists and
many unionists continue to wage.
The evils of
socialism
While it is then not really
useful to discuss socialism as such, we, nevertheless, return to the debate
between Phillips and Robertson. Philips argues that socialism is evil because it
is:
1. as system based on stealing
2. an anti-work system, and
3. concentrates the power to do evil
I’ll deal with each of these
in turn.
Is socialism stealing?
Phillips writes
The whole point of socialism is for the
government to seize control of private property, mainly involving the proceeds
of peoples' work, in order to give it to others. This activity is the
very thing pronounced as evil by the 8th Commandment: "You
shall not steal" (Ex. 20:15).
It is obvious that he refers here to the extreme form of
socialism—communism—in which the state takes all property and holds it “in
common”. Any government expropriation of property without fair compensation is
clearly an act of theft. However, that is not a common practice—even in
socialist-leaning mixed economic systems. In response, Robertson rightly notes
that the more general version of socialism is not stealing “unless you are
prepared to say that all forms of taxation are stealing” which is contrary to
Jesus’ command to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.I agree.
However, Robertson ends this section with the gratuitous
interjection: “Besides which there is a far stronger case to argue that
unfettered market capitalism, with its reliance on high interest rates (which always
harm the poor most)” is far more unbiblical. Here, he also engages in the black/white
thinking (socialism/capitalism) that I have rejected in the previous section.
Moreover, the assertion that market capitalism “relies on high interest rates”
is highly questionable.
Is Socialism
anti-work?
Phillips argues, quite
reasonably, that:
“Socialism promises to give a blessed
life for free. Today, Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders promises to give
free education, free health care, and free vacation time, etc…As I listen to
Senator Sanders, I wonder what incentive there would be to work hard. Why would
I put myself through the ordeal of discipline, sacrifice, and sweat, much less
risk-taking business endeavors, if I can have a wonderful life without working
for it?”
Robertson, however, claims that this statement is
“demonstrably false” and argues that “socialism, like capitalism, could not
work unless there were people who worked hard”. However, there is reasonable
evidence that extensive government intervention (socialism) does not work—even
though there may be some people who work hard (e.g. Venezuela, Greece)
Moreover, “cradle-to-grave” government assistance reduces the necessity to
provide for oneself—both now and for the future. With less need to so provide,
there would seem to be an obvious reduction to work hard. A free market economy
provides maximum incentive to obey the biblical command to work
.
Robertson may be able to point to one wealthy Dutch friend
who is happy to pay sixty percent in tax because his hard earned money provides
for the unfortunate. And, no doubt some of us are God-fearing Christians who
work hard because we know we are working for the Lord. Nevertheless, even
introductory economics text-books teach that increasing the marginal tax rates
reduces the incentive to work and causes people to flee high tax jurisdictions
Recognizing that sinful nature of mankind, is not “pandering to the lowest
common denominator in human beings” but simply recognizing reality.
Does Socialism
concentrate the power to do evil?
Phillips writes
Under socialism, however, a small
number of government masters has control over almost all of the resources of
the entire society. Unless one believes that politicians are inherently more
virtuous than private citizens (and where one would get such an idea is a
mystery to me), then this concentration of power is certain to work
extraordinary amounts of evil…under socialism, access to scarce resources is
based on government favor. This structure virtually reduces the society to
slavery, eventually impoverishes everyone, and unfailingly promotes a culture
of corruption
Robertson responds vigorously:
Firstly, in the socialist system the
idea is meant to be common ownership, not a handful of people controlling or
owning it all. (The fact that this does not often happen is a testimony to
human sinfulness, not the inherent evil of the system).
Note, that both authors are here talking about socialism as
communism—with state ownership of all means of production. That indeed does
“virtually reduce the society to slavery, etc” as was evidence in the old union
of Soviet “Socialist” republics, Cuba, Venezuala, North Korea, with scarcity of
all consumer products. While it may have been meant to be “common ownership”,
rather than “a handful of people” does not change the real situation. Common
ownership means ownership by the state as directed by government, concentrated
in a small group of people. In those instances where extensive common ownership
was introduced it failed miserably.
Robertson, then goes on to argue
Capitalism is not primarily about
individuals working hard to produce wealth. They work within systems. Sometimes
those systems can be corrupt, bribery, greed, exploitation (refusing to pay
workers their due reward..) and are as endemic within the capitalist system, as
they are within any socialist system
It would have been helpful if Robertson had made clear what
systems he means. The only system in which the market operates is that of
government control. Corruption and bribery are endemic in countries where government
laws and regulations are excessive. If businesses choose or are forced to bribe
government officials to be able to operate, should we blame the businesses or
the organization of government that invites this corruption? Every permit or
inspection that is required to operate, invites corruption. The more government
regulation, the more corruption! Moreover, more government involvement in the
economy, leads to higher taxes to pay for all the “benefits”; the higher the
taxes, the more incentive there is for tax evasion—disobeying the authorities
God has placed over us. Thus, increasing government (socialism) will
concentrate evil. That doesn’t mean, of course, that no regulation is required;
e.g. if there truly is “exploitation”, than we have to decide what steps
government can take to control that sin.
Note, that even if individuals are working “within a
system”, in a free market they are required to work hard in order to live. With
many individuals working in their own “self-interest”
,
wealth and prosperity
have been
created when markets are left reasonably free.
Finally, Robertson argues that
It is unfettered free market
Capitalism, not Socialism, which is concentrating the power to do evil in the
hands of a few. It is the big corporations, headed up by a few wealthy
individuals who are pushing the LGBT agenda in the US and elsewhere.
Yes a few corporations have boycotted certain states whose
governments have tried to resist the LGBT agenda. But what came first? Is it
not the almost universal slide away from God’s commandments that have permitted
the LGBT community to push their agenda on both government and businesses?
Corporate managers who are responsible to their shareholders cannot ignore this
since if they don’t jump on the bandwagon, they may lose customers. Isn’t it
the LGTB community and their sympathizers through their influence on government
in general that has brought us this far? Governments have led or caved in on
gay marriage. They have allowed gay pride parades and even “declared” gay
rights week. To blame the “capitalists” for this trend is stretching it.
Similarly, governments have accepted the push for abortion, euthanasia etc. Or,
would Robertson also blame Capitalists for that?
Robertson goes on to add:
It is they (the few wealthy) who are
seeking to negotiate trade agreements that take them out of democratic control
and leave them free to regulate their own affairs and control their massive
wealth.
Another inflammatory statement that would require a whole
article to unpack! Economists generally agree that international trade is good.
Both sides of trade win as countries can specialize in those things they have
an advantage in. In the long run, businesses are able to create jobs by
increasing exports; consumers benefit from lower prices and more choice of
products. Those politicians advocating such agreements do so because of the
jobs effect! Of course, in the short run some industries are losers as less
efficient companies close and the resources involved reallocated where they can
be better utilized.
A basic free trade agreement is good but it is the current
push by bureaucrats and unions to add all kinds of conditions to ensure a level
playing field that result in “undemocratic” tendencies. Perhaps Robertson also refers to “dispute
settlement” mechanisms that are being built in to prevent one side of the
agreement from arbitrarily refusing to live up to the agreement. Companies will
have access to these tribunals to ensure fair treatment—not to “leave them free
to regulate their own affairs”. Besides, if Donald Trump—a Capitalist if there
ever was one—opposes free trade, free trade can hardly be said to “concentrate
the power to do evil”. Let’s not blame Capitalists but reasonably debate the
provisions of specific trade agreements that are considered questionable.
The rest of the article provides a litany of critiques of the
U.S. poverty, health care etc. as if they are all the inherent evils of the
capitalist system. All these require much more discussion and may well justify
encouraging the U.S. to move further to the left on the continuum of economic
systems but may also illustrate failure of government actions. In any case,
they need to be discussed individually to see what can best be done to solve
these problems. Poverty has long been recognized as a case of market-failure;
if you don’t have money you can’t participate in the market system. “Third-world
poverty” in the U.S. must, by now, also be considered a case of government
failure. Similarly, gaps in health care should, by now, be attributed to
government failure—although it must be recognized that a switch to Canadian
type universal health care leads to lengthy waiting times
.
It makes no sense to simply castigate these issues as failures of “Capitalism”.
Implications
Both Robertson and Phillips
overstate and engage in overblown rhetoric. The labels “Capitalism” and “Socialism”
are better not used--given the extreme connotations of these terms. Rather, I
believe Christians should have a conditional preference for the market;
excessive government intervention in the market should be rejected. The degree of government intervention to
“control the licentiousness of man” must be decided on individual issues. That
makes choosing how to vote, a complicated task since politicians and parties
may push certain issues with which we agree with while also advocating those
with which we disagree. Moreover, whatever their policies, their character and
life-style must also be considered. Personally, that leads me to favour
market-leaning economic policies. Since conservative parties which favour the
market have tended also to be more reluctant to support anti-Christian social
policies (abortion, etc.), it is not surprising to find evangelicals normally
supporting them.
In my book,John Boersema, Political-Economic
Activity to the Honour of God, Premier Publishing, Winnipeg 1999 and more
recently on this blog.
