Why Socialism Does not Work

"Mark and Sarah agree that the government should do more to redistribute wealth evenly and Mark went on to say that the State should own everything so people could learn to share everything equally.  
Why do you think socialism doesn't work?  Due Wednesday, May 2nd by midnight.
Bonus 5 points for the best video link you send me on this topic." 


Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYeYPcougmA

            The most fundamental component of any worldview, theology, deals with the question of God’s existence. People who believe in a higher spiritual power of some sort also typically believe in some form of afterlife, whereas atheists find their “heaven on earth” in the form of the government. This idea trickles down into economics. For example, the Bible best fits with a capitalist/free-market economy, which grants humans free will and the duty of stewardship (2 Thessalonians 3:10). However, socialism and its militant counterpart, communism, rely on the government to control the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution are controlled by the government (Noebel, 354-355). These forms of economy are held strongly by secular worldviews, such as Secular Humanism and Marxism. However, socialism has some detrimental flaws that point out the erroneous nature of the worldviews behind it.

            The goal of socialism is to “equalize” the poor and the rich in society; that is, to redistribute wealth in a way that supposedly benefits everyone involved. Socialism is best summarized with the statement, “Stealing from the rich to give to the poor.” However, the individual nature and talents of each person makes the very process of the human experience “unequal”; therefore, only a capitalist economy, which provides for private intuition and economic judgment, can best reflect human nature. Socialism, on the other hand, assumes that Man can be reduced to a mere “economic machine” that can, with time, be turned into a “just” sharer of wealth. This points out another flaw in socialism and its secular values—it assumes that Man is inherently good. For example, welfare programs (a largely socialist idea) is often abused by those who claim to require its aid. In addition, the secular philosophy behind socialism teaches that Man is a constantly evolving individual. Therefore, he always has “room for improvement.” In other words, it is impossible for Man to ever achieve the innate goodness that socialism relies on.

            Another problem with socialism is its transient nature. For instance, Marxists view it only as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism, with communism being the ultimate goal (Noebel, 354). Many people who advocate socialism neglect to envision the larger picture of communism that it precedes. Eventually, socialism, despite its ostensible altruism, must lead to the loss of personal wealth and rights in the name of making society “more equal”—which is a paradox in itself.

            Socialism also faces the obstacle of its failure in historical periods where it has been implemented. In fact, Postmodernist Richard Rorty acknowledges, “‘Just about the only

constructive suggestion Marx made, the abolition of private property [which is socialism], has been tried. It did not work’” (qtd. in Noebel, 388). In fact, many Postmodernists like Rorty have abandoned “pure” socialism in favor of interventionism, which “is not a totally state-planned economy or a completely free market economy, but a combination of the two, where the state plays a role in redistributing wealth created in a  partially or mostly free market environment” (Noebel, 388). Even though all economies are mixed with a certain amount of socialism, a strict adherence to socialism and its principles will only result in economic and social downfall.

Socialism’s “steal from the rich to give to the poor” philosophy is merely a futile attempt to appease personal problems by amplifying them with money. For instance, what society defines as “the poor” (i.e., the “ninety-nine percent”) may very well include individuals with legitimate needs, such as the homeless. However, the Bible also points out that poverty can arise from laziness (Proverbs 6:6-11; 13:4; 24:30-34; 28:19). No amount of socialistic equality can help a person overcome the innate laziness that has driven him or her to financial straits. A fool who is given money is not “improved”; rather, he or she is just a fool with more money, which he or she will imprudently use. Furthermore, not all of the rich people in the world are built on ill-gotten gains. Just like a student who works hard for his or her high grades, many successful men and women have achieved wealth through work ethic, honesty, and, for some of them, obedience to God. Another interesting statistic is that if America really were to use the upper class’s money, it would only run American government for thirty-one days. The problem, then, is not a “money issue.” It stems from the government’s over-involvement in a socialist economy, which has been seen to hinder economic progress whenever it is applied.

The “generosity” that socialism advocates does not originate from a genuine sense of humanity. Rather, according to economist Milton Friedman, socialism relies on compulsory force rather than moral standards of sharing. For instance, even though Christians in the early church shared all things in common (Acts 2:44-45), it is important to remember that this giving was not coerced, as in a socialist or communist economy. In addition, Acts 5:1-4 describes the early Christians’ economic freedom to own and sell private property. These events show that true generosity, whether or not it is financial, must come from the Body of Christ—not the government. This is why programs similar to welfare, et cetera, are best controlled by the Church—its solid foundation in godly values gives a moral reason for sharing with the poor, not just because the law says so. This allows for a much greater sense of sharing that comes without the resentment of “robbed” rich people who are forced into giving away wealth.

Socialism and its many fatal flaws saturate its societal victims with anti-God reasoning under the guise of “social justice.” It is much more desirable to assess people’s financial needs as a result of their character and work ethic—not their location on the poverty line graph. The government’s superfluous power in socialism has as much potential to become corrupted as the rich people it steals from. In addition, socialism’s past failures and transient nature set it up to be an imperfect economic system that must inevitably become obsolete. In conclusion, true “fairness” results from favoring neither the poor nor the rich (Leviticus 19:15).

"Economics #2" Response

            The Christian worldview not only establishes that God created the earth and its inhabitants, but shows Christians everywhere how to interact with nature in a way that glorifies God. For instance, Biblical Christianity recognizes the value God places on all of His creation—especially the human race. While God calls His people to be good stewards of nature, He does not instruct them to place nature on a pedestal of worship, or even equality with Mankind (Exodus 20:4-5). Rather, Christianity states that humanity and nature are meant to exist in a non-abusive relationship, with Man using nature for his own purposes (i.e., building homes), while simultaneously “giving back” to the earth by not overusing its resources. For example, the lumber industry necessitates the destruction of trees to create houses, but many of these companies also hire people to plant new trees to replace the ones that were cut down. This God-centered inherent value of nature is known as theistic intrinsic value (Bergstrom). It reminds Christians that in the same way that they have dominion over nature, God has dominion over Mankind. Therefore, the ways in which we sustain (or abuse) nature will ultimately be accounted for by God.

            Even though it is important to respect and protect nature, the “Earth Day Constitution” established by the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth unnecessarily deifies the earth. For instance, many of its rules assume that “Mother Earth” essentially deserves the same amount of respect as a sentient human being. This kind of logic stems from a Cosmic Humanist idea known as the Gaia Theory, which asserts that the earth itself is a living organism (Noebel). However, the Gaia theory and the pantheism behind it are entirely unbiblical; by granting nature an exalted place of godlike honor, such extreme environmentalism topples the Creative Hierarchy that the Lord has established.

            Not only does environmentalism deny Man his God-given dominion over nature, but it reduces him to being just another “being,” at the same level of plants and animals, that is simply a parasite. Ironically enough, mandates with which environmentalism charges people in relation to protecting the planet highlights Man’s role as the earth’s steward. This high position reveals human dominion over nature—not any “debt” that we owe to it.  

Furthermore, environmentalism places the human race under the constant fear of potentially wounding “Mother Earth” at any given time (Global Warming/Climate change, enlarging the carbon footprint, etc.). Environmentalism also demands that people rectify any violations they make that contribute to the planet’s destruction. Requests to treat the earth in a kind manner, as well as to fix any abuses we perform against it (littering, etc.) are just, (and even logical). However, Christians need to understand the difference between true violations of natural safety, as opposed to the ways in which environmentalists define “violations.”  For instance, taking a weed out of one’s garden may kill the weed, but it protects the wellbeing of the other plants it would have affected. In a way, this seemingly insignificant act maintains the equilibrium of the garden environment. However, the Earth Day Constitution writers would see this as the violation of the weed (“a being”), and its right to life as a part of Mother Earth. The superfluous and irrational approach that environmentalism imposes on every human action ultimately limits our ability to keep the planet safe. For example, certain plant and animal species become prolific to the point that the species in question endanger more delicate flora/fauna around them. Without people to control the populations of such organisms, such an environment would eventually destroy itself—even if it requires killing the “beings” in question.

Environmentalism not only advocates the destruction of God’s Creative Hierarchy (nature below Man; Man below God), but places humans in perpetual guilt for hurting nature. While “planet protection” should be seriously considered in terms of Man’s stewardship of the planet, it is equally important to remember that God granted people dominion over nature. In conclusion, nature’s ultimate purpose is to teach Man to act responsibly, thereby glorifying the God who made them both. 

"Economics #1" Response

There is no such thing as a self-sufficient person. Every single human being has some sort of need that needs to be met, whether it is the need for food or the need for fiscal stability. To meet these needs in society, any country that wants to be successful must establish an economy. There are two kinds of “extreme” economies: The laissez-faire (or capitalist) style economy, such as the one endorsed in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, advocates minimal governmental interference in economy. In other words, people should be allowed to use their own capital, whether it is their ideas or their money, to increase financial gain in a competitive, free marketplace. On the other hand, Communist economies, as well as Communism’s diluted sister-economy, socialism, advocate “[a]n economic system in which the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution are controlled by the government” (Noebel, 354). In fact, Marxists view socialism as “the transitional phase between capitalism and communism” (Noebel, 354). While socialist approaches to economy can be found in both certain Christian and Secular Humanist groups, the most Biblically-oriented economic approach is free capitalism (see Proverbs 31; Isaiah 65:21-22; Jeremiah 32:43-44; Acts 5:1-4; Ephesians 4:28). Documentary director Michael Moore states that “Socialism is democracy. And socialism is Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism.” While the of democracy and unity that Mr. Moore claims socialism represents may cause one to view socialism in a friendlier light, it is important to understand that Mr. Moore is approaching democracy and religious unity from the faulty worldview of Secular Humanism.

David A. Noebel explains that “Secular Humanists do not agree about the ideal economic system although most support socialism in one form or another” (Noebel, 369). Specifically, the majority of Secular Humanists embrace interventionism, which is “[p]olitical activity undertaken by a state to influence aspects of the economy usually in order to uphold certain moral values” (Noebel, 370). Unfortunately, the term “moral values” loses its meaning when used within Secular Humanism; since Secular Humanism uses man as the ultimate standard of right or wrong, morality is subject to evolutionary change. Therefore, interventionism creates an economy that will never be truly consistent. As such, the Secular Humanist approach to economy is an untrustworthy system, as well as the socialism it endorses.

Working from a secular dependence on a socialist economy, Michael Moore declares, “[s]ocialism is democracy.” While the promise of democracy through socialism sounds like a worthy ambition, David Noebel points out:

 …the Humanist conception of democracy differs significantly from more commonly held attitudes. For Secular Humanists, democracy extends far beyond the realm of government…Secular Humanists’ motivation for the application of democracy to all of life is to change relationships…the process of democratization entails a process of equalization. (Noebel, 331-332). The truest definition of democracy that most people espouse is not a process of equalization; rather, it comes from the Greek roots demos (“people”), and kratia (“power”). Demokratia’s English translation is, “the people hold power.” In addition, the idea of democracy was primarily created to describe a government in which the people have a voice in national leadership—not to describe social relationships, or even be synonymous with economy. Democracy’s “power to the people”-based definition could even be used to justify an economic approach that contains less socialism and government interference. Also, the secular idea of democracy and its properties of equalization, if logically followed, become a set of dehumanizing forces that stifles individual talents—aspects which can never be “equal” from person to person.

The atheistic viewpoint from which Mr. Moore approaches the topics of socialism and democracy causes his argument to collapse, given his mention of the great religions’ connection to socialism. Obviously, a worldview that denies a higher spiritual power cannot peacefully coexist with a worldview that does—at least not for any significant period of time, or for any greater good. Therefore, the synonymous relationship that Moore builds between socialism, an economic theory most highly endorsed by Secular Humanism, cannot truly be “Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism,” as he says.

The secular bent from which Michael Moore extols socialism ultimately renders it incompatible with the Christian worldview, or any other religious worldview. Specifically, the high governmental influence that socialism calls for contradicts the Christian worldview because of its emphasis on the government over the church and the family. Essentially, while socialism may initially appear as a lovely picture of future peace, it robs Man of the role of stewardship that God has given him. By granting the government the power to make the final decision on economic issues, such as prices, socialism gives citizens an excuse to live in ignorance about proper resource management. In conclusion, socialism is neither synonymous with the true spirit of democracy, nor religion—rather, it is a secular attempt to create an “earthly heaven” through the government, rather than relying on God’s provision.