Is Communism A Biblical Idea?

The popularity of Barack Obama, coupled with the aggressive government interventionism of our current administration, is making communistic ideas more acceptable to Americans.

I have had little time to blog as you can clearly tell from my blog.  So, when in doubt, ask your readers.

I would like someone to make a Biblical, Christian argument that it is the proper God given role of the government to redistribute the wealth of its citizens.  You don't have to quote chapter and verse from the Bible.  But, please use Biblical principles in your argument.

Warning, I will delete snarky comments with no apologies.

Comments

[Paul]

No snark, promise! I'm totally unfit to make a biblical argument for or against, but I'm going to watch with interest because it's a subject with the potential to irritate me more than any other in religion. For example, Matthew 19:21 says "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

That sounds like a pretty good approximation of communism to me, though I wouldn't claim it's an exact match. But I'm sure that a learned student of the Bible will be able to tell me why it's actually an allegory, or why it needs to be read in the context of the time, or in the light of earlier (or later) passages. And pretty soon we're in a position where a particularly skilled student of the Bible could explain that it means that property is theft, or taxation is theft, or poverty (or wealth) is an illusion or a permanent fixture of life. And eventually I'm almost compelled to think that something that can mean anything actually means nothing.

All that is by way of saying I'm looking forward to the discussion!

[Vinny]

I am a little troubled by the premise of your challenge. Social Security has been around since the 1930's and most Americans think that it is a good idea. What are the communistic ideas that you think have become newly acceptable to the American people?

[SteveC]

Mr. D,

Honestly, not trying to be picayune, but the meaning of terms in this economic debate are important.

Taxation and redistribution is not communism or even socialism, though it gets close. T & R assumes private ownership. Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production, while Marxism is ownership of all means of production and also of the people themselves (their labor, location, what to, or whether to, feed them, etc).

Hope this was helpful, not too irritating.

[tgirsch]

I would like someone to make a Biblical, Christian argument that it is the proper God given role of the government to redistribute the wealth of its citizens.

I don't really think this is a fair assessment of what Obama's policy proposals actually are, but in the interests of staying on-topic, I'll refrain from going further than stating that.

From a Biblical perspective, I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that communism is Biblical, but I will say that capitalism is decidedly un-Biblical. Captialism, after all, is ultimately driven by greed, and greed is clearly identified as sinful.

[Matt]

Communism is a biblical idea, (as seen practiced by the church in Acts) but communism is not a system to be put in place and enforced by government. In fact, forcing a communist system on people is a great way to break down the entire system of communism.

I see no justification in the bible for communism being a role of the government. I also see no justification in the bible for communism not being the role for government. I do see a lot of real world examples about how that works exceptionally poorly, however.

[mathercize]

Part of the law of God for theocratic and king-led Israel was the care of the fatherless and the widow. Part of Amos' rebuke (along with most of the other prophets) was that the 'cows of Bashan' were rich and comfortable while the poor were trampled upon. The legal case brought before God's people by Micah contained the charge that "He has shown you, o man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you, but to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

In the New Testament, the early church redistributed its wealth to all those who had need. Jesus' "impossible" demand to the rich young ruler was that he give his riches to the poor and follow Jesus.

With that being said, I am not aware of any biblical principle that encourages the government to redistribute wealth. I think it would be beneficial for people individually and collectively to adopt the Christian ethic, but at no point should it be mandated by law.

[Alan Grey]

A couple of important disclaimers
1) I don't believe communism is a good idea, nor agree with most of what I am writing
2) I like snark!

Biblically, I would support communism based on several factors
1) Israel's laws were set up with some elements of redistribution and government intervention in helping the poor (E.g. Year of Jubilee, Not harvesting too much so that the poor could etc)

This establishes the government can be involved in the field

2) The early church practiced community ownership.

Extending this, as the early church had no control over the government, then they couldn't use the government to impose communism....(With the implication that they would have if they had the chance)

3) The focus on justice in the Bible. (Micah, Amos etc)

4) Jesus' comments about the rich meaning being materially rich is bad.

5) The current world situation is cast as an injustice, where the poor have been neglected and oppressed by the rich who have far more than they need or deserve.

Obviously, voluntary giving has not been sufficient to address helping those who are poor and oppressed and given (1), the government has a biblical mandate to intervene.

[Mr. D]

Steve raises a good point about the importance of defining terms. I pulled some definitions on communism to give a guideline for the discussion.

Communism: A system of government that controls the means of production to establish an order of equal distribution to the people regardless of their contribution. Socialism is the same, with the exception that private enterprises retain their names. Under communism, all means of production bear the name of the state.

Communism is an economic and political system based on the principle "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.

Let me summarize what I have seen so far ...

... whereas the Bible condemns greed,
... the early church practiced common ownership (Acts 2)
... Israel's laws were set up to help the poor (forgivenss of debt, the prohibition of harvesting right up to the edge of the field),
... the Bible condemns oppression of the helpless by those in power

... then one could argue that the Bible promotes communistic ideas. Is that a fair assessment of the biblical arguments that have been offered so far?

[tgirsch]

Mr. D:

I'm still not sure that I agree with your definition of "socialism." Communism is a specific type of socialism, that much is true, but I'm not sure about the part where "private enterprises retain their names." In both cases, government control of the means of industrial production are the centerpiece, and I don't think that anything that anyone is proposing today even approaches that.

It seems to me that "socialism" has a colloquial meaning that bears little resemblance to the dictionary definition. By the dictionary definition, for example, Obama's health care plan could not rightly be described as "socialist" or anything like that, but in the vernacular, even some of its proponents describe it that way. Somehow, any amount of government funding and/or government regulation has come to be viewed as "socialist," meaning we need a new word to mean what "socialist" used to mean. :)

But straining to circle around and back on topic, I think your last remark, that the Bible promotes communistic ideas, is dead on. That's a wholly different thing than promoting capital-C Communism. Frankly, the Bible is largely silent on the topic of systems of government. Because it's the sort of thing the Bible doesn't address directly, I think you get into trouble when you try to fit that particular square peg into that particular round hole. :) You wind up taking things out of context (a la what Paul suggests) to try to make a point, when the passages you're citing really don't speak to the topic you're trying to address -- a mistake I've watched many priests and ministers make in any number of contexts, by the way. [Please note, I'm speaking here in a generalized "you," not you specifically.]

[Mr. D]

T,

On the one hand, definitions are dangerous because they run the risk of derailing the thread into a definitions game, and we spend our time debating nuances of a word and how it is used.

On the other hand, equivocation can be a real problem, and defining one's terms is necessary to avoid bunny trails and make sure we are talking about the same thing.

I think the definitions I posted are useful for this thread. Communism is a flavor of socialism and has certain distinguishing marks:

- no private property
- classless society as an ideal
- egalitarian principles
- "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
- that is, equal distribution according to need, not contribution

" Frankly, the Bible is largely silent on the topic of systems of government. Because it's the sort of thing the Bible doesn't address directly, I think you get into trouble when you try to fit that particular square peg into that particular round hole."

Well, yes and no. The Bible doesn't have verses that say things like "God says you should set up a government based on free market principles and private ownership." However, the Bible does specify principles which help us chart a course toward how to live our lives ... which includes how to treat people. These principles are a compass and can be applied in variety of contexts - from running a business to running a government, to running a family.

So, can anyone see any further biblical principles which are supportive of a communistic form of governance?

If not, we can move to part two of the discussion...

[Matt]

I believe the major problem God would have with a government enforced communist system is that the decision to "sell all of your possessions and give the money to the poor" would no longer be up to the rich young ruler to do or not do. No one would be giving to the poor out of the overflowing of their heart. It would just be taken from them regardless of their will. Jesus pointed out that the very small amount given from the widow's poverty was actually much greater than the larger amounts given from the abundance of the rich. We see that, for God, it is not really about giving but about what is in your heart.

If there is no choice but to give, then it is not charity but simply coercion. We know that God does not operate that way, if he did then it would be impossible for us to sin. Freedom is required for both love and charity to exist, thus I believe that communism as a forced system of government is unbiblical.

One could make the argument that since in a communist system all means of production are owned by the government and since in regards to taxes, Jesus said "Give to ceasar what is ceasar's" that one should not oppose or try to undermine a communist system of government if one finds himself living in such a state. However I still do see that argument as advocating the creation of such a system in the first place.

[Vinny]

I think we also need to distinguish between "socialism" and "socializing" costs or risks. For example, public fire departments socialize the risk of fires and the costs of fighting fires. However, they exist within a capitalist system.

[Nick]

Mr. D:
So, can anyone see any further biblical principles which are supportive of a communistic form of governance?

If not, we can move to part two of the discussion...

I'm still confused. Are you looking for Scripture supporting a government which redistributes (some of) the wealth of it's citizens, or Scripture supporting a communistic form of governance? Not the same thing, since redistribution can coexist with private ownership, class structure, and unequal wealth.

One other point to ponder: The Roman Empire included wealth redistribution in the form of taxes that supported the grain dole and civil engineering projects that benefited all citizens, not just the wealthy. On the other hand, the New Testament writers are primarily interested in the church and discuss the state only briefly. Paul mentions the role of the state in keeping order but does not indicate that that is the exclusive role. IIRC, he does not condemn any of the other activities of the empire.

So, one might conclude that the state can do pretty much whatever it wants, as long as it allows the church to tend to its own knitting. Government taxation and welfare don't interfere with freedom of worship or the church's charity, so there's no reason for Christians to oppose it.

[SteveC]

Mr D,

Since I have been digging out my famous Bastiat quotes (see my post on the previous thread), I have found a beautiful one for this discussion. Amazing that it was written in the mid 1800s.

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

...for whatever the question under discussion—whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government—at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty.

Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

~Amen

[Ubermensch]

Sorry to stray (if only slightly) off the proposed topic, but I am a little more interested in the biblical principles which advocate (or don't - as some of you have suggested) a free-market society. The point has been brought up that at capitalism's root is greed, i.e. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of self-preservation/selfishness. At first glance that doesn't seem to jive with Biblical teaching. Why would a Christian, like say for example, Mr. D ;), ever support an economic system such at that?

[Paul]

SteveC - that sounds like an argument for Anarchy to me, which is perhaps a little far off the original intent of the thread :)

[SteveC]

If Mr.D were to allow me to toss in my answer to Ubermensch's question to him, this would be the summary: In the absence of cheating, fraud or theft, (protection against which is the domain of the law and government),

the market system is the very embodiment of the Golden Rule.

A Free Market is made up of many iterations of a market exchange: two parties engage in a peaceful, voluntary exchange that leaves each better off than they were before. By definition, each has incrementally increased their wealth, because they value what they received more than what they traded for it. Satisfaction of their "self-interest" is tied directly to the satisfaction of the other party. And, by the way, who isn't interested in improving their lot in life and that of their family? That's not greed, that is living in a world of limited resources.

The "Invisible Hand" is a good thing- the vast, disperse, decentralized and unplanned improvement of society that occurs when mankind is free to participate in mutually beneficial exchanges. It is invisible because no one sees any commander of this beautiful process- it happens spontaneously.

I believe the Invisible Hand is God's own- working common grace into peaceful human society, helping mankind to survive in a fallen world. The non-market system trusts in man to command; the Free Market trusts in the Creator.

[SteveC]

- that sounds like an argument for Anarchy to me

No, Bastiat was never an anarchist. He is simply arguing for the proper use of the force of Law.

which is perhaps a little far off the original intent of the thread

Guilty. In my excitation in finding that quote I overstepped. My apologies.

[Michael]

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law (Romans 13:1-8 KJV).

Free market capitalism is preferable to state-imposed communism, but let's not kid ourselves. The free markets are filled with evil. Evil wages. Evil employers. Evil marketing. Evil products. At some point, the people in general get sick of it. Populist politicians take advantage of this. Evil men are voted into office. Dictators come to power. Nevertheless, the government holds the sword to execute wrath on evildoers.

It is evil to let poor people starve. It is evil to refuse health care to old people because they cannot pay. It is evil to pay people unlivable wages; to gouge people for the necessities of life; to let the disabled beg in the streets; to deceive people into signing up for bad mortgages.

I do not wish Communism on anyone. America already has socialism now - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability, public education, college loans and grants, etc. But when evil abounds, it gets easier and easier to want the government to stick it to the man. And plenty of those aspiring to government power want to stick it to that man on my behalf!

Social Security was imposed to address evil. So was Medicare. Imposed by imperfect people in an imperfect world. This is why we should never seek for the government, sword in hand, to impose socialistic or Communistic policies. The imperfect rule imperfectly. The evil rule by evil.

We should encourage employers to pay better and supply benefits; insurance companies to serve the people more than their profit sheets; landlords and homebuilders to lower prices; etc. All of this is social justice the Church should address. But we should not look to the government, because with that government comes that sword. And that sword cuts both ways.

[tgirsch]

Matt:
I believe the major problem God would have with a government enforced communist system is that the decision to "sell all of your possessions and give the money to the poor" would no longer be up to the rich young ruler to do or not do.

But couldn't you use this sentiment to argue against any attempt to use government to enforce what's right and good and proper from a Christian perspective? One can't "choose life" if abortion is prohibited, for example. This is why I reject that position out of hand -- free will is not an argument against the imposition of rules and structure, Biblically or otherwise.

Nick:

Methinks you're using an overbroad definition of "wealth redistribution," such that the term isn't terribly meaningful. Taxation in and of itself isn't wealth redistribution, it's chipping in to pay the common bills. Wealth redistribution is taking from party A and giving to parties B, C, and D with the stated purpose of leveling the playing field.

Paul:

It actually sounds a lot like Libertarianism. Of course, I define "libertarian" as "an anarchist who lacks the stones to call himself such." :)

SteveC:
the market system is the very embodiment of the Golden Rule

If, by "Golden Rule," you mean "He who has the gold makes the rules," then I'm inclined to agree. Shy of that, however, I have no earthly idea how anybody could look at the free market system and see anything even vaguely resembling treating others as you wish to be treated. Indeed, part of my problem with unfettered free markets is that they can only work as their advocates claim if everyone who participates follows the golden rule. But we know that people lie, cheat, steal, and take unfair advantage all the time, and there's no reason to believe they will set aside these tendencies of their own accord when it comes to market transactions.

The problem with your oversimplified description of how markets are supposed to work is that it presumes (falsely) that both parties in such a transaction are on equal footing. That is, neither party is in a position of relative strength or weakness as compared to the other. But that scenario is very often not the case. For every transaction that looks like "you have something I want; I have something you want; let's swap," there's at least one other transaction that looks like "I have something you need; you have something I want (or want more of); I get to dictate terms that favor me a lot more than they favor you." Your scenario describes everyone in a transaction as a "winner," but there are many, many transactions which have winners and losers -- I'd say that these transactions are at least as common as, and probably far more common than, the win-win variety.

Michael:

I want to agree with you, but I can't. No amount of "encouragement" is going to do the trick. In a system motivated first and foremost by profit (e.g., capitalism), the only way a self-interested party will do something is if it makes them a profit, or if they are forced to do so.

[Paul]

I'm more inclined than tgirsch to accept the idea that in any free transaction there are two winners. The problem is first that transactions are often not free (tgirsch's example of needs versus wants). But then there's the problem that if you take someone who was going to starve to death and sort out a transaction so that now he's just grossly malnourished, but won't die for a while, then technically he's still a winner, but not in a way that would satisfy most people.

[SteveC]

The problem is first that transactions are often not free

Let's define "free": Another word is "liberty". It means, "not prevented or hindered by law or an agent of the government."

I would argue that needs especially are served best in a market system because one has many more choices of sellers, quality and price due to competition.

Your example of a starving person is most likely to be found in "command" economies where the government controls and disrupts the markets such that people cannot even take care of themselves, much less their neighbor. Current examples would be Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Sudan. The market economies of the west have generated standards of living that are orders of magnitude higher than non-market economies. Also, charitable agencies, often religious, are freer to operate in market economies such that the starving person can be helped. Also, free people have more disposable income to donate for aid.

[SteveC]

tgirsch:

Free Markets cannot operate outside of some system of justice. That would be true anarchy.

The problem with your oversimplified description of how markets are supposed to work is that it presumes (falsely) that both parties in such a transaction are on equal footing.

I make no such assumption. In fact, I assume the opposite. Such a scenario exists in all systems. The question is whether the stronger party is in league with the government, where force comes into play. Otherwise, the little guy can choose another big guy to deal with. This principle allowed Walmart to go from a mom-and-pop shop to where they are now.

I did not say "winner"- that is subjective. I said "better off than they were before". You might feel resentful after a transaction, but you still judge yourself better off or you never would have engaged in said transaction; unless, of course, you were defrauded (you did not receive the agreed-upon item or service), in which case you have the option of turning to the justice system and/or not trading with the bad guy ever again. If a seller gets a reputation as a "cheater" in a free market, they will quickly go out of business because their customers will turn to competitors.

[Paul]

SteveC - that's the argument that I hear over and over, in fact while I was stuck in an horrific traffic jam this morning* I was rehearsing my answer :)

I'm not a traditional liberal, though I lean more that way than to the conservative side. Many of the disagreements I have with the right, for example on gay marriage, have no middle ground; I believe the opposition to gay marriage is wrong without qualification. But on this issue I entirely understand the argument of 'your side'. It comes down to two choices:

1. We collectively (through govt. and others) try to prevent poverty. We work very hard at it, try to overcome apathy, corruption, sloth, and any other barriers you can name. We'll make a difference, but we will undoubtedly fail some people.

2. With the same instinct to help we work instead to limit government interference in all areas of life, allowing the more efficient market to do its work and reduce all the barriers to getting out of poverty that society and circumstance imposes. We trust that charity will make up any shortfall between what people need and what they can afford. Undoubtedly this will fail some people, (unless we happen upon the perfect economy!)

I understand option 2, sympathize with it even. It seems reasoned to me, and I'd be delighted if it would work. But I choose option 1 for two reasons:

a) It's in my nature to try and fail rather than hope and fail.
b) I've seen examples of 1 working, however imperfectly. I've never seen examples of 2 work, even looking back at 2,000 years of community in my country. The assumption that we can get government of whatever sort out of the way just doesn't play out. In fact I could almost, if I wanted to brush up against the original thread topic for a moment, say it was like communism; it's arguably a great destination, but you can't get there from here.

*2 hours before I turned round and went home. Normally I cycle, and it takes about 80 minutes

[SteveC]

Paul- If I understand your point #2 correctly, I can agree. Getting to a freer market in charity looks impossible from here. My only point is that both 1 and 2 work better in a market economy, because at least there will be more resources to aid the poor however you choose to do it.

to try and fail rather than hope and fail

I don't understand this statement at all.

even looking back at 2,000 years of community in my country.

What is your country?

[tgirsch]

SteveC:
Free Markets cannot operate outside of some system of justice.

I eagerly await your description of "some system of justice" that does not ultimately mean government, and by extension, force.

As for competition making things better, that's true as far as it goes, but it only works where competition exists, and the natural state of affairs is that it doesn't exist for very long. With the exception of some ubiquitous products/services, what generally happens is that somebody "wins" the competition, and the rest of the competitors go out of business. It's why we have anti-trust legislation on the books (too weak, IMHO). Or, alternatively, when one competitor becomes dominant, and new competitors spring up, the big fish can simply eat the little fish, and *poof*, no more competition. That's the natural state of affairs. We have to impose rules and regulations to prevent this. And, according to free marketers, these sorts of regulations are the anathema to free markets.

I don't demand a "command economy" per se, but there do need to be strong, effective regulations in place, and they need to be enforced. I view the so-called "free market" as a football game without referees. You need referees. The trick is, limiting their involvement such that they don't take over the game, while simultaneously allowing them enough involvement to keep things orderly and fair.

The only other thing I'd say is that not all fraud is against the law, and so there are a lot of transactions where a product simply doesn't do what the seller claims it does (or, at least, not nearly as well as is claimed), and in most of these cases, the buyer has no recourse. It's where we get the phrase caveat emptor. Where you and I differ, I think, is that I believe that such "fraudulent" transactions are much more common than you seem to believe.

[Paul]

SteveC - I agree that these things work better in a market economy, that's why I don't support either socialism or communism. Fortunately we both live in market economies, so that's not a problem!

Hope vs. try. I can either be part of a system of community and government that actively tries to help people, or I can be part of a system that tries to get out of people's way, and then hopes that individuals and groups will provide the services needed to help disadvantaged people. In either case I'll still be active in charity work - I don't assume that government does these things *instead* of me - but my natural inclination is to be part of the system that is active, i.e. that tries.

I'm from the UK, though I lived in MN for 7 years and love the US dearly.

[Tom]

A broader question is: "Should the church advocate that the goverment legislate any Biblical principles?" If we advocate that the secular goverment prohibit homosexual marriage, then we should have the goverment decree the Year of Jubilee, etc.