The Institute (協会)

This scares me and I'm fearless. How can people's thinking be so shallow? How can believers be so uneducated in the Scriptures?

I think it's a bit silly to call Barack Obama a socialist, in all seriousness.

I think its a bit of a "frog in the frying pan" problem. Christians in the UK/Western Europe are in a society where socialism is not only accepted, but practiced; so they a) don't realize the implications of socialism on Christianity, and b) are more free to express socialist thought openly. In America, socialism still has a negative connotation, and in particular for Christians there is pressure to follow the religious right, so there is more secrecy for Christian socialists.

However, I've had two Christian friends bring up the "early church was socialist" argument in the past two weeks, so there seems to be increasing boldness on this issue in the good ol' USA.

This isn't too far away from health and wealth teaching, if you ask me. Enjoying "our best collective life now" is NOT what Jesus predicted, nor what any of the apostles encouraged us to expect.

Chas, I hope you pointed out to your friends the HUGE difference between people willingly giving of their resources to help out those with lesser means versus the government coercing people to give of their resources through taxation.

Tuscon-Can you elaborate a bit more on that idea? I'm inclined to agree with you, but not sure why...

Brad-I tried, bro.

OK so I don't know anything about this Christian Socialist Movement and so i wont talk about that. But i don't really understand why Socialism is somehow - "less Christian" than Capitalism. I don't really think Jesus advocated any economic policy.

For the record I agree that that government enforced charity is impotent, but the greed of capitalism is no better.

In fact (And i know that America is not a "Church - State"), But the old testament principles, year of jubilee and the social laws etc, seem to indicate that God values equality and Social justice more than the accumulation of wealth and the principles of Adam Smith.

Amen! I am with you Jared all day!

Ant!
Wow! I guess I am a little confused. How is fighting for justice and environmental stewardship a socialist agenda? I thought with your "missional" excitement of late (your post and the recent conference you went to where you with some missional college students)that you would be all about a more holistic movement.

I love Jesus and think fighting for justice, racial reconciliation, and ending poverty are all a part of being a Christian. Why am I a marxist?

Help a brotha out!

Holla!

Aaron, fighting for those issues is not socialist at all. However, how one fights those issues can assault human dignity because the economic strategies matter. This was Kuyper's whole point in "The Problem of Poverty" (1891). He said that Christians do not understand economics and often hurt people they intend to help by appealing to a socialist platform because it rhetorically sounds attractive. I'm simply following the political thought of Altusius, Kupyer, Machen and others.

Also, in addition to reading Kuyper you should also read "Centesimus Annus" by Pope John Paul II. It also gives one of the best explanations of the oppression that socialistic approaches bring to human dignity. You will not find a Marxist approach historically that led to more and more people being free. Because of the Fall, the socialistic approach tends toward corruption and oppression historically. But if you can find a Marxist/socialist culture with free people historically, I'm open to learning about it.

Good intentions are not enough; nor are good intentions a substitute for good technique and skill at understanding how systems function.

Anthony,

I've read quite a bit of Wendell Berry and I've never seen anything he's written that would indicate he's a socialist.

In fact, the very idea of a centralized government forcing a program of living on people cuts deeply against the grain of the kind of localism he advocates.

Sure, he's a critic of libertarian capitalism and consumer, but that doesn't make him a socialist.

I'm going to echo Scott and Dean, here, since the can of fake meat and middle finger kept cutting off my attempts to post this earlier:

I'm not really sure I would agree that Wendell Berry and Barack Obama are socialists (though for somewhat different reasons in each case).

Which industries have they proposed nationalizing? Have they argued for state ownership of the means of production? Unless I'm badly mistaken, the basic definition of socialism is an economic system in which the state (in the name of the workers) controls the means of production. (It is also a political ideology, but it sounded to me like you were getting more at the economic use of the term, from the list of things you objected to Christians supporting).

I think it would be much more fair to say that:

Barack Obama is a liberal.

Wendell Berry is an agrarian (and more typically associated with unorthodox elements of the right wing than the left wing).

Neither are socialists.

(So that this doesn't come off wrong, particularly since I don't really comment here, let me say that I do enjoy your blog and thoughts very much (though I certainly don't always agree with them) and read it regularly).

Thanks, Rob. Where would, for example, Obama disagree with the Christian Socialist Movement's platform and means to achieving those ends (especially after what he said about the faith-based initiatives). He seems to fit perfectly with CSM theologically and economically speaking. I'm cool with CSM'ers in the States. It provides good dialog but Obama's $80 billion in new spending to achieve social transformation is consistent with the CSM platform for sure. Also, it's only in the States that the term "socialism" is seen as something radical. In Europe people have no problem using the term freely which may explain why the Christians there are just honest about being socialists. We aren't saying the CSM guys are demonic but are suggesting that they represent an American version of the Christian Socialist Movement. Why won't Wallis admit it? What the difference between Wallis and CSM? Any ideas?

Ant,
Thanks for the clarification.

Someone recently told me that:

An economy becomes socialist when the 50% or more of the country's GDP is spent by the government. He also said that the U.S. is currently sitting at 48% of their GDP spent by the government.

Is any or all of this true? I was really surprised to hear it was that bad... Are we closer than we think?

Brad, could you provide a source on that? A quick google/wikipedia search revealed US GDP at $13 trillion, with a Federal budget of $3 trillion. That's about 23%. Are they including state/local govt spending?

I would say socialism is defined by the underlying philosophy/structure of the government and not its spending habits, though the two are somewhat related.

Chas, unfortunately I can't. I really have no idea how it was calculated, but 23% still sounds pretty stinking high... I have no idea how the figure was calculated either, I'll try and get back to ya on that.... Thanks for filling that out.

Thanks for the reply, Anthony.

I'm not too familiar with the CSM (this is the first time I've heard of them), but I think the big difference tends to be that where European socialists frequently advocate for the nationalization of (non-essential) industries, American liberals (and I wouldn't consider myself one, so maybe I'm not the best spokesman for them) would react quite poorly to nationalization.

Whether that makes American liberals socialists or not depends how you define 'socialism'. The traditional definition, I think, is something like what I said above -- advocating for the nationalization of industries. But you could (and maybe you do) mean something 'softer' -- including, for instance, an increased proportion of government regulation of the economy (which is not the same thing as nationalization) under the umbrella of socialism.

One other point I think is that 'redistributionism', while a feature of both American liberalism and socialism, is not a defining characteristic of socialism. So you can be a redistributionist -- like Obama -- and not be a socialist, under the traditional definiton of socialism. I don't think very many Americans would consider the United States a socialist country -- but some amount of redistribution is a part of our economic system (the Earned Income Tax Credit, for instance). Conservatives and liberals disagree about how much redistribution and government intervention there should be, but very few conservatives argue for absolutely no intervention or redistribution at all.

So back to Barack. If you favor a 'soft' definition of socialism (redistributionist = socialist, etc.) Barack Obama (and other American liberals) would be a socialist. But since that's not the economic organization that socialism has historically referred to, I think its better to say 'liberal' than 'socialist'. When you say 'liberal', most everyone gets what you mean -- someone who believes in a strong government regulation of the economy, subscribes to Rawlsian notions of justice/fairness, etc. When you say 'socialist', some people probably get that you're including non-Marxist positions like those, but a lot of people will think you mean a Marxist -- which Obama is not.

Can't say I'm a huge fan of Wallis or that I pay much attention to him, so I'll leave him out of this. Hope I managed to address your points, other than that.

Brad - I think the quick answer to your question is that, no, that's not what makes an economy socialist. A socialist economy is one where the means of production (i.e. businesses, factories, farms, etc.) have been nationalized (taken over by the government) and are then controlled by the workers. So while the US has a few nationalized industries (Amtrak, US Postal Service, airports), I don't think there's much danger of it becoming a socialist state anytime soon.

hmm.
such big words for simple spirituality.

Wow Anthony...this is really scary stuff!!!! I agree with you completely but the problem that I see from our side of the spectrum is that we lack the emotions that socialists and left leaning people so skillfully use. Plus, our prosperity theology brethren do absolutely no good to the cause, especially in countries like mine that suffer so much from poverty, etc.

Two thoughts: 1)If the Sermon on the Mount was a treatise of Socialism, then why didn't Jesus and/or His disciples mention it over and over in their multiple epistles and recorded sermons? 2) Fair and Just are not the same. Justice is right and suitable. Fairness is usually disguised selfishness.

Well said, Rob. I think the distinction between redistribution and socialism is correct. Redistribution does not show up only in socialism. Also, many liberals make their arguments for government intervention, not just on the grounds of equity, but also efficiency. For instance, we tax polluters not because it's unjust but because the private and social costs of producing some good are different, and this creates market failure problems. American liberals do not advocate for policy prescriptions of increased socialization so much as it is a combination of efficiency concerns related to market failures and social welfare concerns based on providing access to resources (healthcare, education, etc.) at the lowest rung of society.

Anthony, maybe it would be useful if rather than saying Obama's positions are consistent with some socialist group, make a point to show that such positions are exclusively socialist. My reading of Obama is difficult to reconcile with your claim that he's a socialist. For instance, his economic advisers are David Cutler (Harvard) and Austen Goolsbee (Chicago), neither of whom are anywhere near socialist in their thinking (if by socialism we mean explicitly where the state owns the means of production). Obama's policy prescriptions are also influenced a lot by behavioral economics which usually has more of a soft paternalism when it comes to government involvement.

Wow Anthony...this is really scary stuff!!!! but the problem that I see..... things like:

#1 - "assault human dignity" = human dignity is assaulted when one is given what they have not earned!

#2 - "willingly giving of their resources to help out those with lesser" = what happened to survival of the fittest? If one works hard and succeeds... that one deserves the rewards of the blood, sweat and tears it took to be successful!

#3 - "equal worth" = to be equal -> you have to work as hard as those that succeed.

#4 - "personal responsibility" - how many take the easy road, instead of working hard? living off the government when they are capable of securing a job and working their way up. many just want a lofty position - but they don't want to work to prove they deserve it. Those that start at the bottom and work - are proud of what they have accomplished - and are promoted are reap the rewards - they have to prove themselves.

#5 - "redistribution economically to close the gap between the rich and the poor" - WHAT? look at the athletics getting paid BIG $$$ and the teachers and police & firemen getting paid average $$$ -> where is the equality or the integrity?

#6 - "society based on equal worth" - read #5 above!

Each of us is made in GODs image and likeness - so why do some of us work to put food on the table when others let the government put their food on their table?

Things are so outa whack - but in taking from the rich and giving to the poor - when they have not tried and continue not to try will make them more emotionally handicapped and lacking in self confidence. One needs to feel the sense of pride in accomplishing and succeeding in their endeavors.