Socialism, What Is?

What’s this “socialism,” anyway?

It started with Christian Utopian Socialists such as the Hutterites, an Anabaptist branch that lived on communes. They felt that living in a communal manner, rather than seeking financial profit from each other, emulated Christ and his disciples. (I’m not saying Jesus was a socialist; but He did say, “You cannot serve both God and Money . . . Be on guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist of the abundance of his possessions!” Between pure socialism and unbridled capitalism, which would He preach?) History is littered with efforts by Christians to practice socialist ideals.

Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism appears to work. Capitalism is too harsh and socialism ignores people’s selfish side. Each is theoretically consistent with democracy. In practice, either eventually perverts democracy, ending with a small group running things, usually corruptly, and holding power through force and/or propaganda. (Kerala, an Indian province, seems an exception. I’d love to visit there.)

Karl Marx didn’t invent socialism. He built on the work of many highly regarded philosophers we don’t find it necessary to hate. Marx essentially said that while capitalism had helped societies marshal technologies to develop new material goods, which worked great for some, but was not working for most people, and was therefore unsustainable.

During the early 20^th Century, many local and even Congressional elections brought socialists to office in U.S. cities and states. Only extreme right-wingers considered it evil.

Then Russian Communists came to power. Although the Czar needed overthrowing; it’s probably unfortunate that the Communists wrested control of the revolution from the other groups involved. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics perverted socialism. While some (Julius Martov?) were benign idealists, Stalin and others clearly sought and retained power through any available means. While early on the Soviet Union tried to improve the lives of the average citizen, few would try to excuse Stalin’s conduct.

Soviet conduct toward smaller nations was ugly. Think Greece, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. Sadly, U.S. conduct was equally unfortunate and misguided. (Think Iran and Guatemala in 1954, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and, most tragically, Viet Nam.) Maybe a historian could parse out how much our legitimate distrust of the Soviet Union and the Soviets’ quite justified distrust of us led each government to excesses. Neither side was as evil as the other believed, or as pure as it claimed.

The philosophy, socialism, got mixed up with Russia’s expansionism (built on reasonable fears), which conflicted with our national interest. The Soviets used the socialist ideal as a cover for international power grabs. We got their philosophy and actions confused. Our leaders used that confusion to cloak justify our international power grabs. Socialism and third-world independence did conflict with the United Fruit Company’s profits.

Tien An Men Square

The Chinese Communist Revolution started idealistically and gained popular support. The U.S. opposed it, for some stupid reasons. Mao had better intentions than we supposed; and the Chinese government made an honest (though sometimes tragically misguided) effort to better the average citizen’s life. However, it’d be hard to justify what was done to Tibetans, or during the Cultural Revolution. (In China I met survivors of the Cultural Revolution, and Tibetans, whose stories broke my heart.)

Almost all present governments offer some blend of capitalism and socialism. Many are doing better than we are. Yet we still find ourselves hollering,“Socialist!” like some half-understood playground insult.

Democracy is fragile, and precious.

                                                           – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 20 September 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG’s website. A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 fm (http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) during the week, and will also be available on-demand on the websites.]

[It was ironic, this morning, to take a TV break and see an ad targeting a candidate for alleged sympathy to allegedly “socialist” ideas. Those ideas seemed to be ideas for aggressively tackling global warming. I’d call those “survival” ideas.]

[I studied China, then saw it firsthand in the mid-1980’s. I sympathized with China, and had little patience for Taiwan, where the anti-Communist Chinese had fled after the revolution, and were able to build a country because the U.S. protected them. China was interesting: compared to India, it was more egalitarian; one didn’t see the huge contrasts in wealth I heard about in India. Almost no one was well off, but everyone had a roof, a job, food. However, I met so many people whose lives the Cultural Revolution had destroyed, including some older folks I grew close to, who’d been punished for speaking English or being a Catholic or a professional, as well as casual acquaintances like a cabdriver explaining that for two years of his childhood, there had just been no school. Then in Tibet . . . well,

I’ll save those encounters for a different post, but it was a sad education. I realize Tibet was no perfect society before 1959, and there were serious inequalities, but the Chinese did wrong on a huge scale.

Meanwhile, I ended up staying on Taiwan while I wrote a novel and waited for approval on a film I’d pitched to National Geographic TV. I came to respect much about that country, and to be fond of it. Yet to build it, the mainlanders had started by massacring large numbers of native Taiwanese, a crime our government kept quiet about.. (It was a county the size of New Jersey. I actually played basketball on national television once.) At any rate, I saw the virtues and the warts of the Peoples Republic of China, close up; and I got an even closer look at the Republic of China (Taiwan). Perhaps the closer you get, the less simple anything is.]

[On the often “socialist” theme of the Bible, there were many other quotations, including some from the Old Testament, that wouldn’t fit in the column. Then this morning a friend and reader commented:

”Thanks very much for the excellent reminder of a very neglected Biblical theme.  A careful study of the Old Testament laws had quite a few “socialist” features including rules about gleaning the crops, cancellation of debts and proper treatment of travelers and immigrants. 

”Christ practiced “socialized medical/mental health care” without discrimination based upon social taboos/distinction.  Matthew 20 names full employment and living wage as “kingdom of heaven” characteristics.

”Acts 4:32-37 records the establishment of socialism within the Christian community in Jerusalem early in the history.  Same thing with healings (medical/mental).  Indeed the whole community became so popular that the whole community was driven out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-3) just like in the US several times in our history.

“The 1st centuries saw the formation of monastic groups that are still in existence and are still socialist.  Mondragon cooperatives in Spain were founded by a Catholic priest and he used the Catholic social justice teachings to structure it. 

”So these theological feather weights that are so noisily prominent in the US are the “anti Christ” in our midst!!!  Quite a history, no senor? ]

[Finally, the author of our “Pledge of Allegiance” was Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), an American Baptist minister and a leading Christian socialist. Like Pope Leo, he championed the rights of working people and a more equal distribution of wealth and income, which he believed reflected Jesus’ teachings. In 1891, Bellamy was fired from his Boston pulpit for preaching against the evils of capitalism and describing Jesus as a socialist. His Looking Backward was a favorite book of my father’s. But Bellamy is best known for the “Pledge of Allegiance,” which he wrote in 1892 as an antidote to Gilded Age greed, misguided materialism, and hyper-individualism, as reflected in the radical words “with liberty and justice for all.” (Bellamy did not include “under God” in the Pledge. Congress added that in 1953, during the Cold War).]