Is socialism anti-Christian? Options

[CODave View Member Profile]

Is socialism inherently evil... anti-Christian?

Is communism inherently evil... anti-Christian?

Is the US constitution inherently good... Christian?

Just some questions that have sprung into my mind resulting from another thread... but did not belong there I didn't think. So I thought better to start a new thread and post the questions.

I think that as evangelical United States Christian citizens, it may be possible that we may get our values... religious and political improperly meshed together...

Because I was wondering... is it possible that a socialist state could be run in a very Christian way?

Do you think our Constitution was born out of the Bible, or perhaps moreso from a philosophy of the freedom of the individual, individual rights and as a response to former overtaxing and over controlling govts that did not allow individual freedoms like religion, bearing arms, freedom to assemble, etc?

What does the Bible have to say about these things?

Dave

[Everyday Hunter View Member Profile]

Not sure. I'm cogitating as I write. I think I could argue it either way. The more basic question is whether man is inherently good or evil. If man is evil, then his institutions have built-in evil. Modern liberalism believes man is inherently good, and can construct a society that is good. That's basic to socialism, but in a two-party system such as we have it's obviously contradictory.

The Bible's input on this has to at least include the idea of original sin, that we are bent toward evil. How then can we create a truly good society?

Steve

[CODave View Member Profile]

I think carphunter may be able to help us out with this a little.

Dave

[carphunter View Member Profile]

I think that both socialism and capitalism share the same fault: the inherent sinfulness of humanity!
It seems to me that both socialism and capitalsim would only work effectively for the benefit of everyone if human beings were inherently good and altruistic; socialism because it's paternalistic and relies on the "state" being good, capitalism because it requires altruism and philanthropy of the individual to enable it to benefit everyone.
If people were intrinsically good then capitalism would be fine, as people would self-regulate their generosity, and along with the "corporate creation of wealth/trickle down" effect that is the wider social justification of an Adam Smith style freemarket you'd have individuals taking seriously their responsibility for the weaker members of society. My observation is that in capitalist countries that only happens to a limited extent because most people are (due to original sin) pretty selfish and care most/only care for themselves and their own family.
Same observation with socialism. Although I think most politicians begin in politics with altruistic motivation, most seem to eventually fall prey to the "game" that's more about promoting "short term fixes" in order to get re-elected rather than thinking about the long term good. (read George Orwell's "Animal Farm"), so socialism's altruistic theory gets corrupted by its practice.
I think as an economist you can argue it both ways as a Christian, as both Keynesian and freemarket economics have their plus points and blindspots.
An over-emphasis on libertarianism seems to me to be dangerous - it's just giving sinful people more freedom and scope to be sinful, but I think equally that an over-reliance on government just does the same thing but acedes the autonomy to an elite.
In reality, I favour a system that is basically capitalist, but where the responsibility for caring for the poorest is given to the government (I strongly believe in a Nationalised health service and welfare state). Where there is a mixture of personal responsibility and state control.
I think that simplistic equations like capitalism = good, socialism = bad are more the result of social conditioning and a hangover from the Cold War, Macarthyite days than a sensible, thought through philosophy.
A witty person once said that "Capitalism is man's exploitation of man, whereas communism is the exact opposite" ............... in other words, the net result is the same!
That being said, I think that we have to allow individual Christians to draw their own conclusions as to whether they are "left" of centre or "right" of centre in political terms, and each of us needs to do so prayerfully and Biblically. The New Testament gives us very little to help in terms of working out our economic political standpoint (it almost ignores the issue, concentrating instead on the fact that Christians should "respect the official authority wherever it doesn't conflict with their faith" ("render to Ceasar"/ "the magistrate does not wield the sword in vain" etc etc), so that Christians are seen to be good citizens so that nothing detracts from their witness to the Gospel.
The Old Testament has plenty to say about the individual working hard (perhaps more capitalist), but also has a lot about the (regulated) responsibility of the community to the poor and the alien (possibly more socialist).
It's very different for me in the UK from you guys in the US, because in the UK Evangelical Christians aren't associated with just one party in the way you tend to be, so in every Evangelical church you'll get those who vote Labour and those who vote Conservative, and there are (sadly only a few!) Christian Members of Parliament from both parties, some of them who meet together every week and put aside their party differences to pray for each other and the country.
So the way, I look at it EXTREME capitalism and EXTREME socialism are both dubious, but a Christian might legitimately be slightly "left" or slightly "right" in terms of economic theories, as there seems to me to be Biblical mandate for both, it just depends where you put the greater emphasis.
God bless,
Jon

[Greg View Member Profile]

Interesting question, Dave. I agree with Steve and Jon in that the deeper issue is the heart of man rather than just a mere politico-economic system devised by men. Now in my personal opinion, of the two, I believe that capitalism provides the best opportunity given the current human condition of the human heart. Can it be, and is it, abused? Absolutely. But socialism, by its very nature, stifles the free market, which in turn hampers ingenuity, incentive, creativity, aspiration, etc… and as history teaches us leads to tyranny by the State over its people.

I believe that we do see the principles in Scripture about people being deserving of their hard work and enjoying the fruits of their labor while the lazy deservedly come to ruin. Any system employing the redistribution of wealth runs counter to this.

Now some believe that Acts 2:44-45 endorses a type of socialism…I disagree. The key part of that passage is when it states, “…as anyone might have need”. Socialism, economically speaking, redistributes regardless of need according to the dictates of the State. This passage from Acts is a description of the fantastic generosity of the early church and their loving commitment to one another…it’s not a prescription for a national economy.

As was already stated, unbridled capitalism can lead to greed and man taking advantage of man, while socialism can lead to the abusiveness of statism. So we need to keep watch over the condition of our hearts no matter where in this life God has placed us.

Ultimately, the ideal form of government will be a strict monarchy/theocracy with the Lord Himself ruling over all the nations. But until that time comes (only after His return), I believe the best form of government is one that gives its people the freedom to employ (and enjoy) the principles for living a godly life, both economically and socially, that we find in Scripture, yet at the same time enacting and enforcing righteous and just laws to keep the sinful heart of man in check.

[carphunter View Member Profile]

Here's a good little quote(I can't remember where I first heard it);
"The heart of the human problem is the human heart" .... that's why ANY political system (left or right, capitalist or socialist) is at best like putting sticking plaster over a wound- it can tidy things up a bit, but it can't solve the underlying condition!
I'm, in political terms, pretty much "central" in my perspective (I'd probably be seen as left wing in America, but the political landscapes of the UK and US are so different, and in the UK even the Conservative party supports the idea of a National Health Service and a Welfare state).
I don't think it's necessarily a case of either/or along strict capitalist/socialist lines, I think that a basically capitalist shapped freemarket (albeit with proportionate taxation) and a welfare state can co-exist and utilise the "good" points of both systems with each providing "checks and balances" to the other.
God bless,
Jon

[silver View Member Profile]

1) yes
2) YES
3) no

[Huntaholic View Member Profile]

1) yes
2) YES
3) no

Why would you say no to the Constitution being founded on Christianity?

[CODave View Member Profile]

Why would you say no to the Constitution being founded on Christianity?

Is our democratic republic, or our constitutional principals particularly Christian?

Can you site examples, or Biblical references?

[silver View Member Profile]

Why would you say no to the Constitution being founded on Christianity?

That was not the question! The Question was "Is the Constitution *Inherently* Good?"

To understand the argument better this is like asking is the number 96 equal to 100. The proper answer no. Yet the answer could be made that with rounding it is 100.

If the question was the Constitution influnced by the by the Bible the answer would have to be a clear yes. Is that the same as saying is the Constitution divinely inspired, that being writen with help from the Holy Spirt, again yes, but not as strong because we know that it was strongly influnced by the works of other men. Thus we have an element of Sin also introduced. So then we have to ask is Sin "Inherently good" ?

The Constitution has the same limits as any other work of man. That of man's "orginal" Sin nature. Just as you do not murder or some other sin, does not mean that you are totally with out sin. You may make a sin of ommision rather than commision.

[carphunter View Member Profile]

I agree with Silver - some constitutions are better than others, but all are inherently flawed because they're drawn up by flawed human beings.
I think that when people talk about the United Kingdom or the United States being "Christian countries" or even claiming that they were in some previous generation a "Christian country" the claim is nonsense. Both Countries have been heavily influenced by Christianity, both countries have based much of their legal practice on Christianity, the States has a motto of "In God we trust" and the UK has a state church, but unless the majority of the populus are born again Christians with a real, living relationship with God then, by definition, it's not in any meanignful sense a "Christian country."
It's also interesting to look at the Bible, which has very little to say directly about government and societal control.
Even Israel only "got it right" for a very short time in their history, that brief period when they were an absolute theocracy; although Jesus came from the Davidic lineage and was "great David's greater Son", the very notion of a monarchy was a part of God's JUDGEMENT on the Israelites. They wanted to copy the surrounding godless nations and have a king, Samuel told them that ity wasn't what God wanted, the people kept on moaning and in the end God said (paraphrasing here!) "OK, you can have one, but it'll be a whole load of trouble!"
This side of the New Creation nothing's perfect, including even the best governments and constitutions.
God bless,
Jon