I'm Not An Economist, But....

                                                                                                - photo by DC Curry

I’m not an economist, nor am I an expert in economic systems.

Even so, I did attend my Government & Economics class in High School, and I have given more than a cursory glance to the New Testament. At age 55, I realize I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I do have rudimentary knowledge of some of the core values undergirding the considerable control a society exerts over a nation’s wealth and property.

I’ve recently noticed a growing interest in the global economy, and America’s recent conflagration of economic upheaval has sparked vigorous debate across the country.

I have some thoughts.

And, I have a blog.

So, let me weigh in with my ruminations on Capitalism, Socialism and Communism.

Socialism strives for the complimentary merger of two opinions: Thomas Jefferson's well-known, "All men are created equal," and Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, The Portable Marx, tr. Eugene Kamenka (New York: Penguin Books, 1983) 541.)

Capitalism provides the individual with the freedom needed to achieve the first part of Marx’s dream, “from each according to his ability,” and relies on the presumption that individuals have sufficient capacity to leverage their abilities, cooperate and work hard to produce goods and services…which will meet their own needs. Capitalists believe these profits provide incentive.

Three fundamental questions face all economies: What should we produce?  How should we produce? For whom should we produce?  Capitalists believe individuals in a free-market should answer these questions, rather than government officials, tyrants or kings.

This notion is not far from basic biblical teaching which calls God’s people to add value, live with generosity and work hard so “God’s Kingdom will come, and God’s will is done, on earth as it is in heaven.” In fact, Paul wrote Christians these instructions:

2 Thessalonians 3:7-12 (NIV)
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”  We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.

Capitalism assumes Marx’s mandate “to each according to his needs,” is addressed by cooperation, an abundance-mindset and freedom. It is Capitalism’s insistence that the potential for individual profit provides incentive for labor and capital investment that motivates individuals to care for those who cannot provide for themselves.

The Bible is rife with instruction on caring for the helpless and poor – for those who cannot provide for themselves. God’s prophet, Micah declared:

Micah 6:8 (NIV)
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

The question we must ask is, “How? By what means?”

Cogitation continues and the obvious emerges.

Socialists have a conviction; everyone’s needs can be met. Yet, socialists recoil at the severe restrictions on human freedom inherent to Communism’s totalitarian reality.

In the Manifesto, Karl Marx lodges a complaint against socialists who “want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom.” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, The Portable Marx, tr. Eugene Kamenka (New York: Penguin Books, 1983) 235.)  He recoiled at Socialists espousing their love for life in a Marxian society without a dictatorship of the proletariat.  He called such thinking, “Utopian,” and insisted fairness – the ultimate goal of Socialism – was elusive.

Since Socialism reduces incentive for production, and sacrifices individual economic freedoms for a ubiquitous notion of “fairness” - and vaguely defined “social good” - most dictionaries define Socialism as “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism.” 

In other words, it’s a slippery slope.

The Greek philosopher Plato perfectly described Communism’s ideal:

You'll find the ideal society and state, and the best code of laws, where the old saying "friends' property is genuinely shared" is put into practice as widely as possible throughout the entire state. Now I don't know whether in fact this situation—community of wives, children and all property—exists anywhere today, or will ever exist, but at any rate in such a state the notion of "private property" will have been by hook or by crook completely eliminated from life. Everything possible will have been done to throw into a sort of common pool even what is by nature "my own," like eyes and ears and hands, in the sense that to judge by appearances they all see and hear and act in concert. Everybody feels pleasure and pain at the same things, so that they all praise and blame with complete unanimity. To sum up, the laws in force impose the greatest possible unity on the state.  (Plato, Laws, 739c-d, Plato: Complete Works, tr. Trevor J. Saunders, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1997) 1420.)

Hence, Communism is not mere economic theory. Communism is the tyranny of all over one, of society over the individual. Communism’s goal is not only to abolish personal property; it seeks to abolish religion, culture, nationality, family and every celebration of individuality. Its aim and end is conformity, making the society and the individual one and the same.

I’ve heard people say early Christians were Communists. I couldn’t disagree more. Christians freely give  what they have, sharing with those in need. Communists take what others have and redistribute it as the State deems best. It was the personal generosity of Christ’s first followers that helped turn the world upside down, not their acquiescence to Communistic tyranny.

So, if Socialism is – as the dictionary says – “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism,” – I think we would be well-advised to resist it.

Like I said, I'm not an economist, but that’s my opinion.

What’s yours?

Winston Churchill said, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”  (House of Commons, October 22, 1945)

 

2 Thessalonians 3:7-12 (NIV)
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.

 

Comments

[John Jackson]

Hey Mark...for someone who is not an economist, ya did pretty stinkin great with this post. Thanks for your heart, for your leadership in ministry and the "ripple" effect of your life. I appreciate you.

[Brian Buonassissi]

Hi Mark...love your blog. I follow it weekly. Here's some of my thoughts/opinions.

The apostle Paul added, “Those who won’t work, shouldn’t eat” (II Thessalonians 3:10). Hunger is God’s motivation for getting off your butt and working.

Your definition of socialism makes the reader have to understand “capitalism” and “communism” before they can understand socialism.

Here’s a better socialism: “Any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community, rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products” (Webster’s New College Dictionary -4th Edition).

A graduated Federal income tax was the first step towards socialism in this country. That happened by Constitutional amendment in 1913. There is some dispute as to what it actually means and whether or not it was ever legally ratified. The 16th Amendment was a result of politicians doing the very thing one of our candidates is pushing now—creating a class war among Americans. By the way, his bogus claim that 95% of Americans will not see a tax increase under his plan is nothing less than deception. The majority of those people already pay no income taxes. How can you pay less if you’re not paying anything to start with? What he really means is that he’s going to take more money out of the pockets of the country’ s producers and give it to the people who don’t produce anything.

Next question: If this candidat is going to try use language to hide his intentions on taxes, what else is he trying to hide?

This candidate says, “The Rich” should pay more taxes and many people should pay no taxes. In the first place, who is this candidate to determine who is rich? He sets an arbitrary standard of his own making. The people who don’t pay taxes say, “Yeah, let those guys pay taxes because they can afford it.” Since when was it the government’s job to decide what any American can or cannot afford. That’s our choice.

That’s exactly what happened in 1913 (you must remember that from 1776 to 1913, there was no such thing as individual Federal income taxes). The politicians vilified the rich (people like John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, the DuPonts, John Jacob Astor, Cornelius Vanderbilt, etc.). The politicians said, “Let’s tax those guys but we need a constitutional amendment to do it.” So, they rallied the support of the foolish non-rich (who never dreamed they’d ever be taxed themselves…they weren’t smart enough to know that once they opened the door to taxation, it would eventually roll down hill to them, nor did they stop to consider that the Bible says, “show favoritism to no one”). How this “let’s take the rich (whoever they are) more” philosophy ever passed the equal protection under the law” safeguard is beyond me.

Unfortunately, George Santayana was right, “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Some americans today don’t realize that if they allow this candidate to “spread the wealth”, eventually he’s going to spread their wealth to somebody else.

Initially, the Founding Fathers only allowed the taxation of corporations on their profits. There was no individual Federal income tax. The founders realized that corporations would just pass their taxes on to consumers in the form of higher prices. That’s exactly what the oil companies (as well as others) do today. The government takes about 1/3 of the oil company profits right off the top. Of course the government makes no investments in the company’s development of that oil nor do they take any of the risks (from finding the oil in the first place, to drilling it, to refining it, to shipping it, etc.); they just confiscate the benefits of someone else’s work. That’s one of the reasons the price of gas is so high; the companies pass that tax onto us—even though it’s indirect, it’s still another tax we have to pay.

The Founders realized that companies would pass any taxes on to consumers and as a result felt that adding a personal Federal Tax would be a tax on a tax. So, they built in a safeguard prohibiting any direct Federal tax (Article 1, Section 9).

A government that tells us how much they’re going to tax us is a government of tyranny. They can just keep taking as much as they want. That’s why I believe we either need to do away with Federal Income taxes period, or at minimum, adopt a Constitutional Amendment setting a limit to the amount any US Citizen can be taxed (both direct and indirect taxes). The only way to limit the size of government is to limit their revenues. Congress will never limit themselves, despite all the lip service from both parties about “getting spending under control”. That will never happen unless we as a people put controls on the people who work for us (Congress).

Hope this helps.

[Julie Turner]

Well said. I fear losing the ability and joy of giving if even more of what we earn is taken from us.

[Mark McClean]

What a wonderful post!

My comment has to do with voting and is a bit off topic but like you stated, it's your blog and you can choose not to post it if you want.

It heartens me to know that the Shepherd of Christ followers where I have chosen to stick my paddle into the water and help row for the glory of God, is a careful and studious thinker. A thinker who strains to see many moves ahead of the immediate impact the "redistribution of wealth philosophy" so many in our republic embrace today may portend.

At this weekend's service the congregation was told to get out and vote, and to vote for the candidate whose political positions most closely resemble what they believe are Christ's, and would resemble if His Kingdom were fully implemented here on earth today.

A very provocative statement that deserves the kind of scrutiny you have given to it on the issue of economics.

When I heard this statement I wondered how many voters think "for themselves" on the hard issues of the day? Do they think several moves ahead, as you have taken the time and effort to do, of the possible ramifications their voluntary seeding of additional economic decision making power to the federal government may bring?

Have they weighed the economic pros and cons of a government allowed to dig deeper into a citizens back pocket without their explicit permission in order to cut a check for another citizen "they" have deemed more deserving or "needy"?

Have they considered whether this kind of government power comes without any strings attached and whether it may have unforeseen future consequences such as in the charitable" giving in the form a tithe to the local church?

Have they considered the intangible effects of "economic enabling" and the subtle ever-increasing dependence on government it may inevitably bring?

I wonder.

The "get-out-and-vote" statement this weekend also made me realize that my thoughtful and carefully decided vote, responsibly cast with no outside help to get me into the voting booth, is so easily negated by another whose vote would have never been cast had not a slick "get-out-the-vote" marketing campaign been rigorously implemented on their behalf.

My son has been called by one of the presidential candidates at least a half dozen times this last week. A half a dozen times for "one" young vote. Hmmmm, I wonder if they really care whether he has taken the time to think through the economic issues as thoroughly as you have?

If a citizen, in what I believe is our providentially blessed country, must be constantly reminded, cajoled and given countless "reasons" why their vote matters, I don't want that person pulling any kind of secret lever that may decide my economic fate for years to come.

As far as I am concerned that person does our country a service by staying "outside" not "inside" the voting booth.

That may seem like radical voting concept in today's electorate. So be it.

Thank you again Pastor for taking the time this election season to indirectly remind us, by your thoughtful post on
economics and it's relationship to the Bible, that our vote, paid for by the blood of many, is not only a right but a
privilege. That with our vote we are not simply electing the next American Idol winner, but the most powerful man in the free world. A man who will hold the potential to directly effect all of our lives, economic or otherwise, and the lives of our children and even our children's children for generations to come.

It is a sobering responsibility I carry with me into the voting booth this Tuesday. One I need no one to remind me of.

[Joe Wisler]

Mark,
Thanks for the straight forward easy to understand economic study. I would only hope all who attend GCC will read your blog and see the wisdom within.
I have been listening carefully as this political season unfolds and can only say this has been like none I have witnessed since my first vote in 1976. The things we are being told do not match up to reality in too many cases. The things we are not being told, scare me incredibly. This is the first time in my memory when a normal citizen asked a question that began such a firestorm. That question has brought this poor "Joe" under such unwarranted harrassment it is scary. If this can happen to him for a simple question, what will happen if we question deeper issues? Where will it end? The next phase of the "slippery slope" of socialism.
There is much at stake here and we as Christ followers need to prepare in many ways. We keep praying for His Kingdom to come, His will to be done, are we ready for that really is? I pray we are and I will keep praying we are.
Keep up the work of our shepherd and our watchman. I will keep praying for you and your family as you keep leading.
Blessings

[Juan Carlos Bejarano]

Please forgive me for contacting U without your permission but I need to ask you to pray for my father`s health. He needs healing physically, emotionally and most importantly, spiritually. His name is Alvaro, he`s 80 and needs the Lord urgently. He's an stuborn intelectual who finds really dificult to believe the simple truth of the Gospel. I also ASK you also to pray for my brother. He owns a cafeteria in a university in Cali, Colombia and that`s the only source of income to suport his family. The director of the catering department wants him out to give the cafeteria to another one. My brother Rodrigo is a born again christian (10 years) and all of his employees are christians too. He`s helping 20 families to put bread on their tables in a country where is very difficult to get a job. Inflation is galoping so high and they are not allowing to increase the price of lunches, snacks, fruits, etc becuase they want him out. His business and his employees are light in the mist of darkness, humanism, atheism, relativism, drugs, fornication, homosexualism, etc. I know darkness is sending scary reports, that's why we need your mighty prayers to help us closed the mouths of these defeated giants. Please remain blessed and thank you so much for your mighty prayers. I`m also planning on going to Cuba to see my family and I asking the Lord to heal Nadia`s heart (the mother of my son Alvarito) and bring them back home to make a new start with our Lord JESUSCHRIST. I need resources to take this trip very soon. The Kingdom of heaven is a two way street. I`m praying for the United States in many issues, such as financial crisis, elections, Irak, Iran, Afganistan, gay marriage, abortion, etc, and also for the world. Australia is a land I love to pray over with google maps.

"No te dejes vencer por el mal; al contrario, vence el mal con el bien"
Romanos 12:21

[Julie]

I'm praying for the candidate, not who will bring "up there down here", as I don't believe that is the job of the government. I'm praying for a candidate who will preserve our basic freedoms (such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"), so that we AS THE CHURCH can continue to work out "bringing up there down here". I think if we're counting on the government to do that for us, we will be sorely disappointed.

[M. Summers]

I’m a bit confused about this blog, in that I wonder if it is an endorsement of a candidate. A member of the church has been harassing me for several months, insisting that I vote for John McCain. There have been incessant phone calls, emails, and communications from other individuals whom he has asked to call me in order to convince me that John McCain is the candidate that I must vote for. His most recent form of harassment has been to email me a link to this blog as a way of saying that Mark Beeson supports John McCain.

Can you please clarify if that is the intent of this blog? Also, is it the intent of this blog to label Barack Obama as a socialist, as the Republicans have recently labeled him?

A lot was cited in the blog and the various responses about making people get off their butts and work. John Jackson writes “The apostle Paul added, “Those who won’t work, shouldn’t eat” (II Thessalonians 3:10). Hunger is God’s motivation for getting off your butt and working.” This is quite shocking to hear from a loving and compassionate church. Instead of going door-to-door with the food boxes this Christmas, should we just go knocking on doors and tell the people to get off their butts and get a job? What about “Whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.”

For the last eight years, has the current administration’s philosophy worked for ALL? Apparently not, since giving is down 18% at church.

Which candidate is more Christ-like? It appears that reasonable people do disagree, as I clearly see love, kindness, and generosity pouring out of one of the candidates. Fellow-bloggers, however, do not see what I see.

Mark McClean writes “we keep praying for His Kingdom to come, His will to be done, are we ready for that really is?” I’m walking in faith, and I trust that come Wednesday morning, God’s will will be done.

[James Kytta]

Great post Mark! There is one thing that Communism and the Bible can agree on and that is man is basicly evil. The difference is communism says that man needs to be controlled and the bible says man needs to be converted. Socialism/utopianism says that man is basicly good and will be good if everything is provided for him. History has shown that both communism and socialism have failed. I for one will say that the only reason that they have lasted as long as they have is because of Christians in those countries. I believe that all systems of government will fail until Jesus comes back to rule the earth for the promised 1000 years. Tomorrow I will vote for the canidates who mostly resemble the moral absolutes that I believe in.

[trb]

Your points are valid and sensible, but I'd like to point out two things. You seem to be playing to the "socialist" label that the struggling conservatives have been throwing around lately in their thrashing to reclaim some votes. As Rob Wegner stated this weekend, when you label someone, you dehumanize them. Should we not steer clear of these radical labels, especially those with no substantial evidence behind them?

Second, in your list of valid economies, you forgot the one on the far right-hand side: fascism.

My point is that there is a slippery slope on both sides of the peak we stand on, and by pushing back from the one side so hard, you may be falling down the other side of this cliff.