Fr. Larry

Unquestioned Assumptions
When Mitt Romney was running for president against Barack Obama, he made an assertion of something so embedded in the American psyche, so regarded by most people as obviously true, that, as far as I know, it was not picked up on at all by the media, widely discussed by voters, or questioned by anyone. Its incongruities simply did not register. What Romney said was this: “Obama believes in European-style socialism. I believe in liberty and prosperity.” The first thing I would like for you to notice is the ambiguity of Romney’s statement; that is, it names no specific country but refers only vaguely to “Western European” nations. That’s because if he had said British, or Scandinavian, or French, or German socialism, it would have been immediately recognized by any knowledgeable or thinking person as utterly ludicrous. The necessary implication of his statement is that Western European countries are neither free nor prosperous when exactly the opposite is true.

The goal of the rich and powerful of any nation or system of government is to get the people, especially the poor and oppressed, to adapt to their conditions and so perpetuates the wealth and the power of those at the top. This is done through the educational system, the media, political rhetoric, religion, and especially the manipulative use of language. By such means we are conditioned to perceive, think, and value in the same way the elite perceive, think and value things. Consequently, the highest good one can seek in our society is not God, or even truth, or justice, or wisdom but the “American dream”––an entirely materialistic and self-centered ambition for money, status, and power. Just the other night I watched an old episode of “Law and Order” in which the character Jack McCoy, sounding highly moral and patriotic, tells an Iman that he will have to decide whether he is a Muslim or an American first. That suggests ever so subtlety that the highest value is loyalty to the state and the capitalist system of economics––not one’s God; indeed, it replaces God with the state.

The point here is simply that Americans have all been enculturated into a particular way of thinking which serves to perpetuate the economic and social status of the few by instilling the notion that freedom is essentially the possibility that with some intelligence, perhaps a little luck, and hard work, one may hope to join the ranks of the elite. In fact, Republicans more and more define “liberty” as the freedom to earn and retain as much as you can. Taxes are actually seen as theft by the government. So, if you want to discredit a political opponent who believes that rather than maximizing the wealth and power (the good) of a few, our goal should be to maximize the good of the many, to seek the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, then call your opponent a socialist.

What I Mis-Learned in Grade School
From childhood we have been indoctrinated with the belief that socialism is evil, antidemocratic, and stifling. Here are some of the unthinking assumptions about socialism I acquired as a child at home and in school:

1) In a socialist state there is no freedom of religion; in fact, people may be punished for gathering to worship. So every Sunday in the little church of my childhood we thanked God, not that we were free to refuse to bake a cake for homosexuals, but free to gather to confess Christ as the good and gracious Lord of Life openly and without fear.
2) Workers are treated almost like slaves. Compensation for their work is meager, and they have no choice regarding where they work or what conditions they work under. I did not know that most socialist movements have been fueled by workers seeking sustainable wages and better working conditions.
3) All socialist states are ruled by cruel dictators. There is no freedom of thought or artistic creativity. If someone expresses an opinion contrary to that of the dictator they may be imprisoned, tortured, or even executed.
4) There is no due process of law. Law and authority are capricious.
5) There is no such thing as personal or private property.
6) No one can travel outside his or her city without permission.
7) People in socialist countries live in fear and poverty.
8) Life in a socialist country is so miserable and so constricted that its citizens are always looking for a way of defecting or escaping to America.
9) People must be constantly on guard so as not to say anything, no matter how innocuous, that may be reported by a friend, a neighbor, or even a family member to the authorities who are always malevolently searching for the slightest excuse to arrest and hurt the innocent.
10) Schools are not centers of learning, but of indoctrination.

Socialism, however, is none of these things. Or, at least it is not necessarily any of these things. They are certainly characteristics of totalitarian political regimes, but totalitarianism and socialism are not equivalents. The latter is only undemocratic if those making regulatory decisions do not represent the people. Socialism itself is simply the economic theory that the means of producing goods and services, as well as their distribution and exchange, should be owned and or regulated in part or whole by the people. When Republicans claim a program of universal health care is socialist they are correct; as is, Social Security, Medicare, the United States Postal Service, public libraries, public education at every level, and the regulation of agricultural production and payment of farm subsidies. If you live in Texas and think maybe power companies should be a little better regulated so that you can stay warm in a harsh winter without your utility bill being more than your rent or mortgage, then you are thinking along socialist lines.

After California deregulated its electrical utilities in the late 1990’s traders like Enron were able to sell electrical power at a factor 20X the normal peak value. There were ruinous and dangerous Stage 3 rolling blackouts and catastrophic financial losses for the state. If you believe that power utilities should be unregulated, “free,” to charge and distribute electrical power in whatever way maximizes their profits, you are truly an anti-socialist––or maybe just a good Republican. But if you think power, water, and sewage ought to be regulated, or even owned by the state for the good of everyone, then you are thinking more like a socialist. If that’s the case, then I am very interested in knowing if that makes you a scary person.

Core Values
The leaders of every civilization that has ever existed have stated a set of core values by which society is to be governed. In composing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson grounded the authority of the state in the right of every man (by which he meant every property owning male) to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What the Declaration of Independence articulates, then, is a values-free state which encourages its citizens to pursue their own individual interests, unencumbered by any larger and more comprehensive set of values. Jefferson, of course, with one change, drew his list of core values from the popular English philosopher John Locke. He substituted the word “happiness” for property. Locke had written that all men have the right to pursue life, liberty, and property. When Republicans equate liberty, define freedom, as the right to acquire and retain as much property as one is able, short of armed robbery or murder, they are making the philosophical argument John Locke made in his Two Treatises on Government.

The Moral Context of Capitalism
Adam Smith, whose enormously influential book The Wealth of Nations was also published in 1776, argued that by giving everyone freedom to produce and exchange goods as they please and opening the markets up to domestic and foreign competition, people’s natural self-interest would promote the prosperity and the wellbeing of society as a whole. What was true of individuals and communities he argued, was also true among nations; he, therefore, was an advocate of free trade. Smith believed that we can each act entirely in our own self-centered interests, and yet, miraculously, as if there were an unseen hand or natural law at work, when it all comes together in the market place of a village, a country, or on the planet, the final result will be the best possible outcome for everyone. He wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

Every individual neither intends to promote the public interests, nor knows how much he is promoting it. . . He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner that as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Ronald Reagan’s “trickle-down economics,” the notion that the more wealth the rich accumulate the more of it that will drip down to those at the lower economic levels, and the better off everyone will be, is but a simplistic statement of Adam Smith’s economic philosophy. In our time it has become a narcotic with which to anesthetize the whole nation to the pernicious practice of greed.

Dilemma and Dystopia
The thing is, the greed inherent in capitalism is not only unseemly, to use an old-fashioned word, but exacerbates the multiple crises threatening human civilization. The first crisis is the excess of capitalism itself. The multiplicity of problems created by corporate selfishness and greed; such as, the winter of Texans suffering, the ability of the rich to control political and economic decisions and so undermine genuine democracy, the growing inequalities between the one percent and the ninety-nine percent, the ever-growing vulnerability of the middle class and the increasing plight of the poor, the ever growing resemblance of American cities to those in third world countries, and the now obvious disparity between public and private wealth are the glaring realities of both our national and global situation today.

Perhaps the most urgent crisis generated by capitalism is the destruction of our planet as a hospitable human habitat. As Philip Clayton and Justin Heinzekehr note: “The problem is that the way the global system is currently set up –– allowing individuals to amass whatever wealth they can and to spend it as they wish –– makes it impossible for human societies as a whole to take the actions they need to take. For the first time capitalism has faced a crisis that it is fundamentally incapable of solving.” Capitalism requires an unending growth in consumption –– an ever-expanding economy. It is, in one sense, the greatest and most elaborate pyramid scheme anyone could ever imagine. But like all pyramid schemes its success requires an ever-expanding base –– someone, a lot of someone’s, as Amway has shown, must buy the soap or the whole thing collapses.

Capitalism, in the end, is simply not sustainable. Clayton and Heinzekehr hypothesize the following possibility if we do not choose a more sustainable path:

If the collapse of civilizations in the past is any guide, we can be fairly sure that three things will happen. Rich people and nations will use their wealth to (try to) buy the resources they want, their technology to (try to) get the water and food that they need, and their power to fight off poor nations who want what they have. People without food, water, or government support will take up whatever weapons they have and begin moving toward the nations that have the food and water they need. Governments, in battle against their hostile neighbors and an increasingly hostile planetary system, will reduce civic freedoms and increase their control, doing whatever they deem necessary to protect their interests.

I am not saying that this dystopian world is inevitable, but only that it is one option with which the human race is confronted –– and perhaps, given the historical record, even the most likely to be taken––rather, I am asserting as a person of simple Christian faith that there is also open before us the possibility, the choice if you will, of a society that exists for the common good. Unlike the capitalist society of today, such a world must be built on the principle of sustainability for the whole and the many rather than perceived as existing for the total consumption and gratification of the few. If this view is seen as socialism then I am not offended to be called a socialist.

A Brief Theological Reflection
The Bible, which is my special focus as one seriously attempting to follow the Jesus Way, endorses no particular economic or political system. I suspect that is probably because the fly in the soup has more to do with the nature of human kind than with ways of organizing economic, political, or ecclesiastical systems. What Scripture emphasizes is that the man or woman of faith is a person who pursues universal justice, compassion, love, and generosity of spirit regardless of the cultural, political, or economic system they inhabit. It is not difficult to find right wing theorists, even among clergy, arguing that passages from the New Testament like Acts 4:32 ff. do not prove that Christianity is socialistic. They are correct in that scripture prescribes no economic theory or ideology. But, whether what it offers is more in keeping with the core values of socialism or modern capitalism you will need to determine for yourself. In doing so I would suggest you reflect quietly on the following quotations from the Old and New Testaments; as well as from the great saints, sages and theologians from the age of the patristics to the present day.

Nehemiah 5:1-11
A great protest was mounted by the people . . . Some said, “We need food for our families to survive.” Others said, “We’re having to mortgage our fields and vineyards and homes to get enough grain to keep from starving. . .” And others said, “We’re having to borrow money to pay the royal tax on our fields. . . and here we are having to sell our children off as slaves—and we can’t do anything about it because our fields and vineyards are owned by somebody else.”
I got really angry when I heard their protest and complaints. After thinking it over, I called the nobles and officials on the carpet. I said, “Each one of you is gouging his brother.”
Then I called a big meeting to deal with them. I told them, “What you’re doing is wrong. Is there no fear of God left in you? We did everything we could to buy back our Jewish brothers who had to sell themselves as slaves to foreigners. And now you’re selling these same brothers back into debt slavery! Does that mean that we have to buy them back again? I and my brothers and the people working for me have also loaned them money. But this gouging them with interest has to stop. Give them back their foreclosed fields, vineyards, olive groves, and homes right now. And forgive your claims on their money, grain, new wine, and olive oil.”

Acts 4: 32-34
The whole congregation of believers was united as one—one heart, one mind! They didn’t even claim ownership of their own possessions. No one said, “That’s mine; you can’t have it.” They shared everything. The apostles gave powerful witness to the resurrection of the Master Jesus, and grace was on all of them.
And so it turned out that not a person among them was needy. Those who owned fields or houses sold them and brought the price of the sale to the apostles and made an offering of it. The apostles then distributed it according to each person’s need.

Saint Basil (329-379)
In truth it is the height of inhumanity that those who do not have enough even for basic necessities should be compelled to seek a loan in order to survive, while others, not being satisfied with the return of the principal, should turn the misfortune of the poor to their own advantage and reap a bountiful harvest.

The animals use in common the plants that grow naturally from the earth. Flocks of sheep graze together upon one and the same hillside, herds of horses feed upon the same plain, and all living creatures permit each other to satisfy their need for food. But we hoard what is common, and keep for ourselves what belongs to many others.

Tell me, what is your own? What did you bring to this life? From where did you receive it? It is as if someone were to take the first seat in the theater, then bar everyone else from attending, so that one person alone enjoys what was offered for the benefit of all in common––that is what the rich do. They seize common goods before others have the opportunity, then claim them as their own.

Saint John Chrysostom (347-407)
Not to share our wealth with the poor is to rob them and take away their livelihood. The riches we possess are not our own, but theirs as well.

Saint Gregory the Great (540-604)
When we provide the needy with their basic needs, we are giving them what belongs to them, not to us.

Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara (1909-1999)
When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945)
Although Reformation views are doubtlessly preserved here (America), they are distorted by the crassest orthodoxy, especially in the Southern Baptist Church. Here a different side of the American character manifests itself, namely, an unrelenting harshness in holding on to one’s possessions, possessions either of this or the other world. I acquire this possession with trust in God. God made my success happen, so whoever infringes upon this possession is infringing upon God. It’s obvious that no understanding for the vitality of the church can emerge on such a basis, for this thinking, too, is basically individualistic. And although this position is decisively waning in the religious context, it persists with almost unaltered strength in the social and ethical thinking of enlightened Americans.

Pope Francis (1936 – –)
For my part, I would observe that the Christian tradition has never recognized the right of private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of property. The principle of the common use of created goods is the first principle of the whole ethical and social order.

Now, you wouldn’t have to search very long on the internet to find articles, especially by millionaire clergy, arguing in lawyer-like fashion that these verses and quotations don’t really mean anything nearly as radical as it seems. So, with a shrug I simply quote Edwin Friedman: “The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change.”

Final Encouragement
My encouragement to you is not to accept formal socialism without engaging in critical or reflective thought, or to adopt it in totality as an economic philosophy or as furnishing a solution in every instance, but to understand it for what it actually is in order to avoid manipulation by clever politicians and becoming automatically dismissive of good people and proposals. I further encourage you to remember that all politics is inherently moral and spiritual. The term “politics” or “political” comes from the Greek word “polis” meaning the city, city state, or community in which people gather for mutual security, well-being, and development. Our political life together raises, and will always raise, important questions as to where and what regulations are needed for the benefit of everyone, and where they instead encumber the greatest good for the greatest number. The Genesis story of the Noahic flood begins by saying every imagination of the human heart had become continuously evil. I sometime wonder if that means people had lost the ability to ask: “What’s good for us?” and were capable only of asking, “What is good for me?”