Friday 30 September 2016

Is Socialism Satanic?



That is the title of a blog post[1] 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)[2]. 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[3], 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[4].

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[5] 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[6] 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)[7] 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[8].

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”[9], 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[10]. 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[11].


[1] Is Socialism Satanic? – Why has the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals gone all Political?
Posted on February 22, 2016 :reprinted in Clarion  of the July 29, 2016 where I found the post first.
[3] I think that Robertson castigates the “Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals” too much. Viewing the blog on which Rick Phillips’ post occurs, it doesn’t look like official statements of the Alliance—just a forum for discussion of topics of interest to Christian readers—like Clarion. Phillips does not purport to speak for his church anymore than Robertson claims to speak for the Free Church of Scotland on his blog. By the way, Phillips has also published a response to Robertson on his blog, at http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/03/capitalism-is-not-the-gospel.php.

[4]  In my book,John Boersema, Political-Economic Activity to the Honour of God, Premier Publishing, Winnipeg 1999 and more recently on this blog.

[5] https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2016.pdf; their rankings are based on publicly available numbers. North Korea and Cuba are not ranked; they are my personal addition.
[6]  In spite of the definition of capitalism that he gives in his third post Is Capitalism Satanic? Posted on February 25, 2016theweeflea
[8] See my book, p.162
[9] Not necessarily “selfish interest” 
[11] Which leaves the choice in the current U.S. presidential campaign extremely difficult!