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).