In my last post I quoted from Whittaker Chamber’s seminal book, Witness. My younger readers, and even some of my older ones, may not know who Whittaker Chambers was. This is what Wikipedia says about him:
Whittaker Chambers was an American writer and editor. A Communist Party member and Soviet spy, he later renounced communism and became an outspoken opponent. He is best known for his testimony about the perjury and espionage of Alger Hiss.
It should be added that the left never forgave him for exposing Communism or Hiss. He was much maligned for this during his lifetime even though he was completely exonerated – as was his contemporary, Joseph McCarthy – after historians gained access to the Soviet Union’s achieves after the cold war. The record clearly show that Hiss was a spy, and that if anything, Chambers and McCarthy understated the extent to which Soviet agents had infiltrated the U.S. Government, Academia and the Media.
In spite of the now undeniable documentary evidence the left still continues to malign Chambers, even though it has been forced to admit that Hiss was indeed guilty of perjury and espionage. This bias can still be seen in Wikipedia’s article on Alger Hiss:
Alger Hiss was an American lawyer, civil servant, businessman, author and lecturer. He was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department and UN official. Hiss was accused of being a Soviet in 1948 and convicted of perjury connection with this charge in 1950.
On August 3, 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist party member, testified under subpoena before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (known as HUAC) that Hiss had secretly been a communist while in federal service, despite the fact that Chambers had previously testified under oath that Hiss had never been a communist. Called before HUAC, Hiss categorically denied the charge. When Chambers repeated his claim in a radio interview, Hiss filed a defamation lawsuit against him.
During the pretrial discovery process, Chambers produced new evidence indicating that he and Hiss had been involved in espionage, which each had denied under oath to HUAC. A federal grand jury indicted Hiss on two counts of perjury; Chambers admitted to the same offense, but as a cooperating government witness he was never charged. Although Hiss’s indictment stemmed from the alleged espionage, he could not be tried for that crime because the statute of limitations had expired.
The Wiki article says that Hiss was acquitted of being a Soviet spy. Unmentioned is the now undeniable fact that he was a Soviet Spy. And the statement that “Chambers admitted the same offense,” is far short of the whole story. Such insinuations and aspersions on Chambers character, veracity, and motivation were even more common during his lifetime, and they continued until the Soviet achieves made it impossible to continue to deny that Chambers was telling the truth about Hiss and everything else he testified to.
Chambers died before the record was set straight. In fact, he died not knowing if the truth would ever be known; so to set the record straight he wrote his side of the story in his book, Witness,. History has shown us that Chamber’s Witness was faithful to the facts.
While the entire volume is well worth reading, I believe its introduction, a powerful letter to Chambers’ own children, ought to be required reading in every civics class in America.
In the “letter” Chambers says something that helps me respond to the criticism of one of our readers that I loathe Barrack Obama. I don’t. I believe he is a man being driven by high moral impulses. But I do loathe the Marxist philosophy that this disciple of Saul Alinsky holds to. And so I must oppose him with all my moral and intellectual strength. Let me use the words of Chambers confession to his children to explain:
I see Communism as the focus of the concentrated evil in our times. Why, you will ask, then, do men become Communists? How did it happen that you, our gentle and loved father, was once a Communist? Were you simply stupid? No, I was not stupid. Were you morally depraved? No, I was not morally depraved. Indeed educated men become Communists chiefly for moral reasons. Did you not know of that the crimes and horrors of Communism are inherent in Communism? Yes, I knew that fact. Then why did you become a Communist? I would help more to ask: How did it happen that this movement, once a mere muttering of political outcasts, became this immense force that now contests the mastery of mankind? Even when all the chances and mistakes of history are allowed for, the answer must be: Communism makes some profound appeal to the human mind. You will not find out what it is by calling Communists names. That will not help much to explain why Communism whose horrors on a scale unparalleled in history are now public knowledge, still recruits its thousands and hold its millions – among them some of the best minds alive. (emphasis mine throughout)
These observations agree with my own, albeit, limited knowledge of Communism.
Some time ago I spent some time studying early Soviet history, particularly Stalin’s rise to power. What struck me was that many of these early Communists were not evil men, nor were they stupid. In fact many of them, including Stalin himself, were first class intellectuals. How then did they give birth to something as monstrous as the Soviet Union? They did it from the best of motives. They did it for moral reasons. They sincerely thought they were doing good, but the road to hell was paved with good intentions.
How, then, did so many smart, good and well intended men go so wrong? Chambers explains:
First let me say what Communism is not. It is not simply a vicious plot hatched by wicked men in a sub-cellar. In is not just the writings of Marx and Lenin, dialectical materialism, the Politburo, the labor theory of value, the theory of the general strike, the Red Army, secret police, labor camps, underground conspiracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the technique of the coupe d’état…These are expressions of Communism, but they are not what Communism is about….The tie that binds [Communists] together by no secret oath. The tie that binds them across the frontiers of nations, across the barriers of language and differences of class and education, the defiance of religion, morality, truth, law, honor, the weaknesses of the body and the irresolution of the mind, even death, is a simple conviction: It is necessary to change the world. Their power, whose nature baffles the rest of the world, because in large measure the rest of the word has lost that power, is the power to hold convictions and to act upon them. It is the same power that moves mountains it is also an unfailing power to move men. Communists are that part of mankind which has recovered the power to live or die – to bear witness – for its faith.
It is the vision of man’s mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man’s liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man’s destiny and reorganizing man’s live and world. It is the vision of man, once more the central figure of the Creation, not because He made man in His image, but because man’s mind makes him the most intelligent of animals….Communism restores men to his sovereignty by the simple method of denying God….[Communism] has taken the logical next step which three hundred years of rationalism hesitated to take, and said what millions of modern mind think, but do not dare or care to say: If man’s mind is the decisive force in the world, what need is there for God? Henceforth man’s mind is man’s fate.
So, if God is denied, who or what shall be put in His place? The answer of Communism is, the State, and often, since men must worship some being, the leader of the state. But what of Socialism? Socialism and Communism are sprouts of the same bitter and poisonous root, the French Revolution. (See my previous posts: How We Got in the Present Mess, parts 1 & 2) Since both sprouts come from the same roots they contain the same seeds. Socialism is really nothing more than Communism in slow motion; or as Marx saw it, a necessary precursor to it.
Personally my only question to all of this is why the rant against communism? Obama isn’t even advocating it. In fact hes a Socialist more than anything. Also it is against the facts for you to say that Socialism is only an inevitable prelude to communism. That would be a misrepresentation of the ideas behind Socialism (which are abstract at best) For instance Canada, Britain, France and Portugal all have socialist ideals worked into their economies and they have extremely well operating systems of government and show no sign of devolving into communism.
By: Matthew on September 13, 2009
at 8:55 pm
Matthew, when I refer to Socialism as an inevitable prelude to communism I am referring to Marxist theory which views socialism as a “transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.” (Source, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, # 3) I do believe Obama is advocating Marxism. He is too smart to do so openly, but those familiar with his background — from his recruitment by Marxist, Frank Davis, to his work as an Alinskyite community organizer, to his associations, such as his 20 year membership in a church which was the flagship of Black Liberation Theology (a “Christian” adaptation of Marxism), — the rhetoric of Marx (which he uses), know what is happening. We also look at his appointments and advisers (Obama himself asked us to do this and judge him by them) and we note that a number are Marxist. In fact, the one just removed, Van Jones, was a self-proclaimed Marxist. You could also go to Marxist websites and see what they say about the guy. Here’s a summary: he’s one of their own.
You are right about, Canada, Britain, France and Portugal. You could add the U.S. Since FDR we have had a mixed economy. But we also know know (thanks the Verona project transcripts and the Soviet archives, that the Roosevelt administration had more Communists in it than Alger Hiss. My contention is that Socialism is the French Revolution in slow motion, and Communists will work to bring in Socialism…as the first or intermediate state between capitalism and a Communism. But what all Communists since Marx wait for is crisis. That’s when they make their move to gain more power. They know that people must see their times as desperate before they will agree to desperate measures and and actual change in the operating system of a country. Thus we see Rahm Emanuel, for example, saying that our present economic crisis is “too good to waste.”
By: markcarlton on September 13, 2009
at 10:21 pm
Well Socialism doesn’t neccessarliy follow the Marxist doctrine that you would have most communists to persribe to. I myself am a Socialist, mainly in oposition to capitalism. I simply fail to see most American doomsday predictions about a Socialist state coming true.
By: Matthew on September 14, 2009
at 12:16 pm
Hi Matthew, I appreciate you self disclosure. It’s nice to know where you’re coming from. From your earlier post we can at least agree on this, Obama is at least a socialist. Our other socialist poster, Tunji, may appreciate this coming from you. I hope you will continue to read. I’m going to have some things to say about socialism, communism, and American capitalism.
I am not a socialist because I am a Christian and find statism, even in its most benign form, a threat to liberty and an invitation to tyranny. It should make for some interesting discussion. We do see current events differently. I agree with this article from, of all places, Pravda: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/ The only thing that is preventing a full move to socialism is the Supreme Court and the Blue Dogs in Congress.
By: markcarlton on September 14, 2009
at 2:11 pm
Hello Mark, thank you for being so punctual in replying.
Communism is an issue I am definately on your side about. I see it as an foolish ideolofy that reaches for unatainable goals. I am strictly against capitalism too. It is an ideology that more resembles a Darwanist world view. The only part is disagree with you on is Americas “rapid” descent into Marxism.
I look forward to your future articles.
By: Matthew on September 15, 2009
at 12:45 pm
Hi Matthew. I think we might have some agreement in principle. We agree on Communism. We may also agree on some forms of capitalism. For example, I do not advocate or defend the sort of Ayn Rand capitalism that many conservatives push. I find Rand’s moral thinking as offensive as Alinksky’s. I find objectivists and the market they defend as evil as Communism. I think our friend, Tunji has seen some of this kind of capitalism first hand in the developing world. But I would suggest to both of you that socialism is also an immoral alternative. I would also encourage you to read Basist’s, The Law: http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
By: markcarlton on September 15, 2009
at 4:43 pm
Hello Mark! I am glad you sent me that article! It was an interesting read. However the writer does make the same eroneous claim that Socialism leads to communism. I am very edgey on this issue as I made an argument against it many times it is also what got me banned from editing on Conservipedia. The only critique I have for the article is that it fails to understand what Socialism is. That is a fare reaching wide variety of ideals that have been adapted in a lesser or greater form by alomst every country on our good Earth except the United States (until now at least). I must say that I agree with Mr Hugo Chavez when he says:
“Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ–who I think was the first socialist–only socialism can really create a genuine society.”
God Bless.
Matthew.
By: Matthew on September 15, 2009
at 8:41 pm
Pastor Mark
Let me see:
1 Two Americans were, at the height of the Cold War USSR spies- So what’s new about that.Were there no Soviet citizens who spied for the USA,at the height of the Cold War? This was a time each was trying to better the other as alternative world views! Even now do France,Israel,Russia,USA not have spies in each others’ territories?
2 One of the 2 spies (now repentant),in a letter to his children,states his new-found conviction that communism is the root of concentrated evil on earth.He has stated his opinion,and offers no shred of evidence to that effect .
3 This same ex-spy says that it is of the nature of communism to be evil.Once again this bland statement is not supported with any facts whatsoever.
4 He states that men become communists for moral reasons.This is undoubtedly true.But then this cannot possibly be the only appeal of socialist-communist thought.The Bible,for example,has a strong appeal to me not only at the levelof faith,but on the basis of morality,
5 The ex-spy also says that communism makes a strong appeal to the human mind.On this,our latter-day James Bond undoubtedly is right.
6 He says that the power of communism stems from the strength of conviction held- the willingness to live or die for what one believes. But,the men who fly planes into buildings are all well educated,overwhelmingly from middle class or rich families,and are ready to die for what they believe,also. It doesn’t seem that this is a feature unique to communists.
7 The ex-spy mentions the horrors of communism ‘on a scale unparalleled in history’.But,wait a minute,what of the horrors for example of the 6 million Jews who died in such camps as Treblinka and Sobibor?What of the 20 million Soviet citizens who perished in a the war triggered by fascist Italy,Japan and Germany?Was Hitler a communist?
It only seems right to say that regimes on the right,left,as well as theocracies,have in human history, led to much human degradation and suffering.
8 Pastor Mark concludes,agreeing with the ex-spy,that communism seeks to replace God with the rational power of man’s mind.At the level of sheer banality,I am tempted to say ‘Look at me,I believe in God,and I am socialist!’.
More seriously, I will look at this ‘godlessness’ of communism,God permitting, in a later post tomorrow.
Cheers.God bless.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 16, 2009
at 7:11 pm
Tunji, you really should read the book before you comment on it. There is plenty of evidence for the inherent evil of communism in is. Also, the various Communist regimes in the 20th century killed around 100,000,000 of their own citizens in times of peace (who knows how many million died in their combined wars). That makes Hitler 6,000,000 pale in comparison. I would also suggest you spend a little time reading Alexanders Solzhenitsyn. You might start with some of his fiction, such as A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and the Cancer ward. And if you really want to have a look at the monstrous evil of Communism, try the Gulag Archipelago.
It is populuar to say that Hitler was a man of the right and Stalin a man of the left. This is a supraficial reading of history since both were opposed to liberal democracy (you have already pointed this out with regard to HitlerO and both men were committed statists. By our standards, this would place both men left of center. It must be remembered that in Hitler’s day the “right” was about rejecting liberal democracy and returning to the despotism of Bismark and Kaiser.
By: markcarlton on September 16, 2009
at 8:21 pm
Pastor Mark
Matthew
Certainly.Pastor Mark is wrong in positing that capitalism is the way of God.Also,Matthew and President Chavez are wrong in positing that the socialist way is the way of God.
We shall be opportuned to look into this in more depth,as the series on God,government and economics unfolds,sirs.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 17, 2009
at 8:17 am
Pastor Mark
1 The Rape of Nanking was not carried out by communists.The millions killed in Congo in order for King Leopold to build his immense personal wealth,and Belgian wealth, were not killed by communists.The many massacres of Africans during colonial rule were not carried out by communists.The ships that carried millions of my ancestors to the Americas,Caribbean and West Indies were not owned or operated by communists.The Church of Rome that tortured people to death during the Inquisition were not communist.Hitler and the war he unleashed,leading to the loss of 40 million souls,was no communist.Communists did not fund and carry out the barbaric Crusades.The Japanese who used comfort women-forced prostitutes-during the war were no communists.
2 If the Nazis and the Soviets were both left of center,how can you explain the particular viciousness of the battles between them?All historical accounts I have read say each side embarked on a war of extermination against the other.Whole villages and cities were wiped off the map by the Nazi army.It is estimated that as many as 250,000 Berlin women were raped in the last few weeks of the battle for Berlin,and the weeks immediately after its conquest.I saw on a documentary the testimony of a Berlin woman who was raped-mercifully,she passed out after the 15th man had raped her.This wasn’t war,this was attempted extermination of your sworn ideological foe.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 17, 2009
at 8:39 am
Tunji
I certainly don’t agree with all of Mr. Chavez views, but I do see him being right that Socialism is the better way to go. I simply think that morally it is a better choice and would promote better ethics in people.
By: Matthew on September 17, 2009
at 12:18 pm
1. I would have you note that Whittaker Chambers did not say that communism was the only evil in modern times, but that it is “the focus of the concentrated evil in our times.” Please note the word I emphasized and consider how quickly, in what a concentrated time, the Communist slaughters occurred. Yes, Tunji, all of those things are terrible. Many, I note — such as the Rape of Nanking — were carried out by conquering armies during times of war. I also note that the death toll you point to is the product of many different philosophies and that it was spread over many centuries. But added together they pale in comparison to the slaughter of 100,000,000 people was driven by a single ideology, killed by their own government in times of peace, and that the slaughter was carried out in less than 100 years. Viewed in this light, the world has never seen an ideology as evil or deadly as Communism.
Even if we add in those killed in all of histories wars (which you want to do by mentioning the death tole of the second world war), it would be hard to match the total number of people slaughtered in Communist peace by their own government. In fact, it would take the total casualty figures of the 20th century to even come close. Leave out the 20th century and Communists killed more of their own people in times of peace than were slaughtered in all of histories wars.
2. You asked: “If the Nazis and the Soviets were both left of center, how can you explain the particular viciousness of the battles between them?” That’s easy. In our history we witnessed the same thing on a small scale in some of our major cities in the turf wars between various organized crime families. No one would argue, that the Italian and Irish mobs in Chicago were different in any significant way. They were both criminal enterprises battling for control of the city. This is what happened in WWII.
Like two gangsters from different crime families, Hitler and Stalin really had a lot in common. As our old saying puts it: They were two peas in a pod. Recently I read a couple of biographies of Stalin. I discovered that he both liked and admired Hitler, particularly his ruthlessness. Hitler’s Night of the Long Knife’s, for example, greatly impressed him. In modern American parlance you would say, Stalin had a “man crush” on Hitler. When Hitler betrayed him by breaking the non-aggression pact it really threw Stalin. He didn’t believe the prior intelligence that said it was going to happen and he couldn’t believe it was happening even when it did. He was genuinely surprised and stunned. He really believed in his new best friend, Hitler. One historian has observed, “Stalin only trusted on person in his adult life (Hitler) and that person betrayed him.
You are correct, that once Stalin was able to shake off his malaise the war between German and the Soviet Union became one of the most brutal in the history of the world. You are right in saying, “Whole villages and cities were wiped off the map by the Nazi army.It is estimated that as many as 250,000 Berlin women were raped in the last few weeks of the battle for Berlin,and the weeks immediately after its conquest. I saw on a documentary the testimony of a Berlin woman who was raped-mercifully,she passed out after the 15th man had raped her.” You added, “This wasn’t war, this was attempted extermination of your sworn ideological foe.” Not necessarily, it was two massive crime families going at it. Actually, Tunji, it would be hard to make the case that the average Russian Soldier was driven by ideology. It was primal hatred fueled by revenge. The Russians remembered what the Nazis had done to them. There is an excellent book on all of this. I is a lengthy account of the last year of the war. I highly recommend it. It is called, Armageddon, by Max Hastings.
By: markcarlton on September 17, 2009
at 3:57 pm
If morality is based on the word of God, then the only thing necessary to demonstrate the immorality of socialism is the 8th and 10 commandments. First, the 8th commandment establishes the right to private property and the right of a person to own his property without having it stolen by another. The 10th commandment makes it clear that it is even a sin for others to covet another person’s private property. Yes, stealing is a sin. And as Bastiat correctly points out, this is true even if government is the thief, and even when the majority of the people have given it permission to plunder on their behalf. And the coveting of others property is still a sin, even if a poor man is the one doing the coveting and even if the rich have more than they “need.”
For me, and perhaps others, the question of Socialism or Capitalism is not even an economic question. Rather, it is a question of how much power government should have in a just society. The debates is; should we have freedom or tyranny? It is the question of whether Abab had the right to seize the field of Naboth. Socialism says: Naboth’s vineyard belongs to the government, and the people and should share collectively in its produce. This is called, tyranny. Biblically Informed Capitalism says: The vineyard and the land upon which it sets belongs to Naboth and his heirs. Ahab has no rights to it, Naboth’s neighbors only have right only to the gleanings and whatever else Naboth chooses to give them, and Naboth can do whatever he chooses to do with the rest. This is called, freedom.
You see my socialist friends, Basiat was right; if there is not the freedom to private property there is no freedom at all. So I would say that Chavez has no more right to covet and to take other peoples property and the fruit of their labors than did Abab.
By: markcarlton on September 17, 2009
at 4:19 pm
Matthew
I agree with you that socialism is the better way to go for mankind.
However,it is one thing to say that socialism is morally,ethically superior to capitalism.It is quite another thing to say that socialism is the way of God,or to say that capitalism is the way of God.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 17, 2009
at 5:12 pm
Pastor Mark
One soul lost through hunger,exploitation,injustice,unjust war,anywhere in the world,at any time,is one soul too many.I have no wish of comparing one ism with another based on body counts.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 17, 2009
at 5:19 pm
Pastor Mark
I agree with you that the rank and file Soviet soldier was not necessarily motivated by ideology.But they were not the commanding officers-the ‘brains’ of the war,or the political leadership.I find it surprising that you can only see the personal motivations here.
Do read any biography of Hitler.In addition to Jews,blacks,deformed people,the ‘unwashed Eastern Bolshevik hordes’ attracted the concentrated hatred of this deranged extreme-capitalist regime.
Tunji
Tunji
By: tunji on September 17, 2009
at 5:28 pm
Tunji, my reading (including an auto-biography from a Soviet General who later defencted) officers were driven, not by ideology but by fear. Even the Soviet’s top General, Zhukov, labored under constant fear of Stalin. The “political leadership” was doing the same. Survival really was the name of the game in Stalin’s Soviet Union, both before, during and after the war. As to Hitler, I have read a number of biographies and histories of the Third Reich. Locking at my office…I have five books just on Hitler here in my office. I also have another five books on the Nazi’s three of them that deal with Hitler’s rise to power. I also have DVDs. One, a set of college lectures on Hitler, also a BBC series: The Nazis, a warning from history. In addition I have eleven books on the war in Europe (including Churchill’s seven volume memoir). I also have seven books on the Holocaust. I have other history books that touch on these subjects. For example, I have several histories of the 20th century. I also have six books on anti-semitism and one book contrasting the leadership styles of Hitler and Churchill, and another just on the subject of fascism. In addition, I have other books and DVDs on these subjects at home. I have read all of these books except for the last 6 volumes of Churchill’s Memoir, and three other books I haven’t gotten to…yet. (Alas…so many books to read, so little time). So, Tunji, is this backgroud sufficient for you to realize I do know a little bit about this subject.
Now, let’s set the record straight; national socialism was not an extreme-capitalist regime. Fascism presented itself as a third way, an alternative between capitalism and communism. In fascism private ownership was allowed, but the government controled the means of production, thus, it was a statist option, conservative by then German standards (because it harkened back to German autocracy) but liberal by modern standards. Since you respect Wiki, here’s there definition (Emphasis mine):
By: markcarlton on September 17, 2009
at 6:19 pm
I could not disagree more! Each “ism” is a doctrine claiming to be the truth. Few isms have made this claim more blatantly than Marxism. So we must just the test Jesus commanded and judge “isms” by their fruit. Communisms friut grew quickly and we have 100 years of it. Interestingly, it was tried by different men (and women) in different places and times. But it always produced the same fruit.
By: markcarlton on September 17, 2009
at 6:21 pm
Pastor Mark
Even Tony Blair’s propagandists claimed he was building a new third way in Britain.Qaddafi claims he has found a middle way between capitalism and socialism in Libya.What is important are not the claims made by politicians-they are all to varying extents self serving-but the reality on the ground.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 17, 2009
at 6:44 pm
It wasn’t the politicians who said it, it was Wiki, and if you are going to be consistent you have to accept it. Remember, you once refused to debate the subject of cults of personality with me because I would not accept its definition. The fact is, the state controled the private sector in both Itally and Germany to such as extent that private ownership of the means of production meant very little…except that the businesses served the ends of the state as serfs served the interests of their masters. That, my friend, is not capitalism. So when you call the Third Reich “extreme-capitalist regime” you are wrong. The Nazis, like the Communists, were statists Utopians, which means the means of production were controled by the state. That sounds like socialsim to me. Perhaps that’s why it was called, National Socialism.
By: markcarlton on September 17, 2009
at 7:55 pm
Well Pastor Mark I love your conversation but you are again falling into the narrow definition of Socialism as though it were a strain of Marxism. There were many Socialists before Marx. The belief I have is that spreading the wealth is a good thing. Note the government is not stealing anything if they are Socialist, that argument rings hollow as Capitalists trample on the rights of nearly every human being there is. They exploit markets and even the grocery store where I work charges unfair prices which is tantamount to stealing. Though mind you they do a good job of covering it up.
By: Matthew on September 17, 2009
at 8:21 pm
Yes, Matthew, there were socialists before Marx. But though there may have been some socialist sentiment before the French Revolution, socialism as a movement began with it and the desire for equality. The watchwords of the French Revolution, as you know, were “Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. But, what they did not know — but would find out — was that Liberty and Equality (as they envisioned it), are mutually exclusive. You say you are in favor of spreading the wealth. Fine. How are you going to do it without the government taking wealth from those who have it and giving it to others who do not? Please, explain.
Now let’s talk about your charges. Your grocery store charges unfair prices. What makes them unfair? Please, explain? What prevent the consumer from going to another store that charges fair prices if your store is too pricey? If your store charges too much, then what is to prevent a capitalist from starting a store, undercutting his prices and taking business away from him? In the town I lived in for the last 22 years some people got together and started a food COOP. Frankly, if you feel the way you do, what’s preventing you from starting that store or COOP? In a free enterprise system you are free to do so.
By: markcarlton on September 17, 2009
at 10:03 pm
Nothing prevents it. We just have nowhere else to go. Its quite a good system i must admit. The prices are extreme as they are more expensive than anywhere else (frankly I can’t think of many stores that charge 1.49$ for a simple chocolate bar). Another instance is that of our milk or meat. I’ve compared it to stores in other towns and ours is by far much pricier(by a large margin). My employer is simply greedy. Thats why I dislike my bosses. They are the second largest employers in town and there are lots of people who would happily take my job and frankly I can’t afford to lose it. I see it as a sort of microcausm. They know that they can get away with it and shamelessly do so. Considering they have no real competition it fairly simple for them to make money.
By: Matthew on September 18, 2009
at 12:43 am
As for taking wealth from others that is not the case. I simply envision a society that would be working towards the benefit of its fellow man. It would be one that would preferably have control over the rampant bonuses that company bosses give themselves. Mostly to get wealth you need to have a job opportunity. How do we get job opportunities? Make jobs. I know its not that simple but bear with me. What if in a society the rich, instead of rewarding themselves with larger paychecks had to pay at least a quarter or more of it to the poor? The higher the income you have the more respodsibilty to the people around you, you must have. This way we could get the poor off their feet and find them jobs wheather it be as simple as a street cleaner or a bus driver. If we quit wasting money with private companies imagine the amount we could spend if it all went towards the betterment of society?
Though mind you this does not get rid of private property at all. People may still own their own businesses, have their own property and regulate their own goods. Though mind you the government (well the people really) would have to get their share. That way it could be spent on bettering the country and giving people things to do and making more options available. This way once an economic stability is established and we can addequetly support most people (as I believe that not everyone will be able to be supported nor will everyone want to work) that wages can be increased as a level of prosperity develops.
A good thing to keep in mind is that I am a Socialist Libretarian. I do not believe the government should have a hand in everything just economic control.
By: Matthew on September 18, 2009
at 12:54 am
Matthew
I note your comments, sir.I preface my comments by saying that for me the belief in socialism simply is a matter of conviction.
I come from what could be called an upper middle class Nigerian family.Possessing degrees in Economics,Insurance,Business Administration and Theological Studies,I have in the past 25 years or so been employed in Nigeria’s insurance industry.I do,by the grace of God, enjoy a standard of living probably superior to that of most US citizens.
I think that what you sketch out is at best a strongly welfarist form of capitalism.Let me explain, Over time the more far sighted capitalists have come to realize that there is a need to temper the worst excesses of the system.Thus you have unemployment benefits for the unemployed,cheap Council flats in Britain.’projects’ in the USA etc.Price control is also attempted,so that poor people can at least have something to eat.Also subsidized healthcare.In London,elderly people(retirees) and some other categories of person enjoy subsidized transport etc.These are all commendable and of great benefit to the working class.
But they do not::
1 Change the essential nature of the State.We need to remember that a State,any State,exists to defend and promote specific class interests.
2 Affect the nature of the means of coercion employed by the State.The army,police etc are there to protect the specific form of the State.
3 Change the nature of the institutions that support the State-the superstructure-such as the Church,press,mass media.
4 Affect the ownership of the means of production.
5 Affect the nature of the relations of production etc.
Pastor Mark for example has asked why other capitalists don’t simply start up in competition with the supermarket owner.This is the ‘pure’ capitalist sentiment,in its pure form.It rarely is ever that simple.Ask why De Beers has had an arm lock on the diamond market for several decades,maintaining prices that everyone knows are artificially high.Why don’t other capitalists displace them?Oil producing Third World countries were being paid a pittance by 3 oil companies,being shamelessly exploited,before the emergence of OPEC etc.
Matthew,your argument for non proportional taxation is not one that I think Pastor Mark will agree with.What,reward the lazy,by robbing the rich,who have worked hard for their money?That would be robbery!
Matthew,the dilemma you pose indirectly is a classic one:How do we advance the common good,while allowing individual initiative.I would like to look at this later.Now,I’m tired! I’m meant to be on leave!
By the way,pray that your employer does not stumble on your comments.He might take ‘capitalist’ action against you(joke).
May God bless you,brother.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 18, 2009
at 12:06 pm
I have to thank you for your words. You see I am at s disadvantage when it comes to forming an effective theory for the problems you pose.
1 Change the essential nature of the State.We need to remember that a State,any State,exists to defend and promote specific class interests.
2 Affect the nature of the means of coercion employed by the State.The army,police etc are there to protect the specific form of the State.
3 Change the nature of the institutions that support the State-the superstructure-such as the Church,press,mass media.
4 Affect the ownership of the means of production.
5 Affect the nature of the relations of production etc.
You see I have a poor background in economics, poor at best. I only know a few basic things about the economic process. I am with a small group of like minded students in town who have the same ideals. We all agree that socialism is the way to go but we are in the conundrum that you have stated.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Matthew
By: Matthew on September 18, 2009
at 12:29 pm
Tunji, I do agree with you that Matthew is calling, not for socialism, but for a welfare state, a mixed economy such as we have in this country. I might also point out that there is some truth in Tony Blair and others reference to such an entity as: “A third way.”
Moving on. It is interesting, Tunji, to see how completely you have accepted the Marxist philosophy of history. I see this in your statement that government exists “to defend and promote specific class interests.” I understand this theory, but it is not Biblically correct.
The scriptures indicate that God Himself ordained human government. Consider for example, Romans 13:1-2: “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”
To what end, then, has God established human government? Paul addresses that too: “Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same. For it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, and avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”
Gentlemen, here we have a little different theory of governance than the one purposed by Marx, Engels. They saw the states as the defender and promoter of “specific class interests.” But Paul understood it as a divinely appointed Minister (his word, not mine) justice.
Now I will admit that Paul does not deal with the fundamental question: What is a government? For example, let’s say that there is a coup in a country. What is the government? The deposed one or the military junta which seized power? Was Mao correct in his observation: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Is that all government is? Is there no difference between a government and a band of armed thugs? I think there is.
Simply stated, Government is as government does. In other words, it is not power that makes a government, it is action. And government is that institution that fulfills the God given mandate of Government. Conversely, a ruling power that abridges that mandate is not a government at all the Biblical sense. Thus, a institution that exists to “defend and promote specific class interests,” is not a lawful government.
So let me spell out the Biblical mandate. Based on my understanding of the whole of scripture, here is my own definition of government: Human Government is the institution ordained by God for the well being of the human race. To this institution God has delegated retributive justice (i.e The rewarding of good and the punishing of the evil), and He will hold human rulers accountable for their administration of this awesome responsibility. Specifically, God has ordained human government by God to, 1.) protect the life of its people, 2.) protect the liberty of its people, and 3.) protect the property of its people, and to punish those who would kill, enslave or steal from them. By this definition, not everything that goes by the name of “government” is really that God ordained institution describes in Romans.
The founders of this country — following the theology of Samuel Rutherford in his book, Lex, Rex (The Deist followed John Locke’s the secularized form of version of Rutherford’s concepts) came to the conviction that Human Governments forfeit the right to be ordained when they exceed the God ordained mandate (this can be seen in our Declaration of Independence, which is actually a theological argument).
This argument, first put on paper by Rutherford in 1644, is an interesting one. It would state that when government ceases to protecting innocent life, and begins to take it instead; when it ceases to protect its people’s liberty, enslaves them instead; and when it ceases to protect people’s property, and plunder it instead; such an institution ceases to be a lawful government and forfeit its right to rule. The people, then, have a right to rise up against this group of armed thugs and replace them with a government.
In contrast, Marx and Engels, believing that governments exist to to defend and promote specific class interests, purposed replacing one group of armed thugs with another. The only difference being that the new group of armed thugs would represent the interests of a different class, the working class, the proletariat. Sorry, I prefer a government on the Biblical model, the one we speak of in our Pledge of Allegiance when we say, “One nation, indivisible [a rejection of class warfare], with liberty and justice FOR ALL [as opposed to any particular class]. These are lofty goals, and we have often fallen short of them, but I believe they reflect the Biblical Mandate and are worth striving for.
Now, Matthew, let’s get specific about some of your concerns. I do believe it is within the purview of a lawful human government to enforce some minimum level of benevolence. I see the Biblical mandate for this in the Old Testament law. The rich were entitled to their wealth, but they were to leave the corners of their fields and the gleanings for the poor. They were also required to pay a special tithe every three years. This tithe was administered by the Levites and dispensed to meet the needs of the poor.
I must go for no. More Biblically informed political science later.
By: markcarlton on September 18, 2009
at 3:30 pm
Pastor Mark
1 I certainly look forward to ‘more Biblically informed political science’!
2 I should clarify.I did not exit this blog earlier because of dispute over definitions.I did because the tone of discussion on that particular thread was ‘hardening’,with some undertones of incivility.
Earlier on,on at least 2 other blogs I actively contributed to,the content of discussion had turned decidedly nasty.I had allowed myself to be drawn into exchange of ill tempered abuse.Indeed on one of them the blog moderator referred to the free for all as merely ‘strong language’,and actively encouraged harsh, intemperate use of words.I know some would refer to choice words used by Paul(Galatians) and Jesus(Pharisees) as models of discourse,but then I am neither Paul nor Jesus!
I swore,on exiting these blogs,that I would never again be a part of discussion where we do not observe common civility,respecting the view of the other man.We may disagree,but there is no reason why we should be uncivil towards each other.
3 The Rape of Nanking refers to the burning,looting,mass executions,that followed the military conquest of this town.True the destruction followed on the war,but the reference is to the mindless harm inflicted,after formal military hostilities had ceased.
4 Definitely,a deformed socialist USSR and fascist Germany had several features in common.But this does not mean that the essence of the states they controlled were the same.Ideologically,they were as different as night and day.
5 I think you trivialize matters when you compare these 2 states to 2 New York gangs-maybe the Genovese and Corleone families?What one needs to check are the essential features of the state.Indeed,no matter how charismatic and powerful the leader is,he cannot rule on the basis of personal charisma only.Hitler for example had a huge charisma.But that cannot explain the appeal of national socialism to men of his time.Those who lived through Nazi rule may be reticent today,but Hitler is undoubtedly the most popular leader Germany has ever had,more than Bismarck.Most Germans of the time accepted,like Scripture,the Gobbelsian propaganda.
Companies like Krupp and Bayer continued to produce at the concentration camps throughout the war,using slave labor.
6 On the proper characterization of national socialism I am a bit hampered,as I have no access to my library.But I will check internet sources,and come back within the next 2 days.Also, I have not forgotten the supposed ‘godlessness’ of communism -I intend to return to this.
Peace.God bless.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 18, 2009
at 6:49 pm
Wome quick responses:
I hope so. I think it is necesarry to examine all things, even our deepest held political and economic beliefs, in light of scripture.
Thanks for clearing things up. I didn’t think I was being uncivil to you, though I did think you were wrong. Sometimes my dry sense of humor doesn’t translate unless I’m face to face. For example, there is a great deal of tongue in cheek humor in my original post and responses in the Joe Wilson’s Faux Pa thread. For example, I really don’t want the president to go around decking people.
Agreed, it was horrible event. How instructive, then, that it pales in comparison to the crimes committed by various Communist regimes in the the 20th century…the killing fields of Cambodia, for example.
You actually stated the problem with both systems when you said, “the states they controlled.” It is total state control — statism — that was the problem. And, undeniably, both states had controled economies. Actually, they pretty much had state controled everything.
I don’t think it trivilizes. I think it is a perfect analogy since both the systems — Biblically speaking — were lawless criminal enterprises disguised as governments.
Esentially, they were the same in most respects. They had different dreams of what Utopia would be like, but both sought to create one through the power of the state.
I agree with much you say on Hitler. I would note that Hitler was popular even in my country and even by many in France and Germany.
Yes they do. Support of the kind of Christian informed Free Enterprise I support deplores them too. As I called Nazi German and Soviet Russia criminal enterprises disgusised as governments, so I would describe Krupp and Bayer, and many other multi-national corporations, as criminal enterprises disguised as businesses.
I understand. I had the same problem when my library was packed during our recent move. I should also mention, that I have read books on the Nazi’s I don’t own, and even now I’m reading a book on the Nazis in my spare time (I’m reading Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman–Unveiling the Nazi Secret Doctrine, by Abir Taha) . Obviously, I am very interested in this subject.
By: markcarlton on September 18, 2009
at 7:54 pm
Matthew, let me return to you post. Regardless of what Tunji said, it is possible — and fairly easy, as least in the United States, to start a store or coop of your own, and it sounds to me like you have a golden opportunity to do so. If you are successful you might even be able to drive down prices in your city through competition. I’ve had a friend who started his own grocery store (it was in a small community) and I know a man who started a food coop so I know it can be done. Given your desire for a more equitable society you could even operate a non-for profit coop, and you could give 20% of your income to the poor. So rather than waiting for government to take and redistrubute other people’s money or regulate their businesses, why don’t you take Gandhi’s advise and become the change you want.
By: markcarlton on September 18, 2009
at 8:00 pm
I see what your saying Pastor Mark. I however am not a citizen of the United States. Where I am such a program wouldn’t even exist! I am a citizen of Canada. Now I happily admit that we are not as much of a capitalist state as the US but I have to say most of our business men (my boss included) practice that style of capitalism. Which is why our economy is linked so closely with the US. When the recession hit the US we suffered just as much. Though I have to give kudos to our politicians as they managed to keep us afloat without any serious trouble!
By: Matthew on September 19, 2009
at 10:23 pm
Tunji,
You are caught, very funny my friend. How can you say that you believe that socialism is superior to capitalism” and make this post on the same blog?
“I come from what could be called an upper middle class Nigerian family.Possessing degrees in Economics,Insurance,Business Administration and Theological Studies,I have in the past 25 years or so been employed in Nigeria’s insurance industry.I do,by the grace of God, enjoy a standard of living probably superior to that of most US citizens.”
So, are you pulling our collective legs? If not I would suggest that your belief in socialism is in direct conflict with your lifestyle. This is called duplicity and I am more and more baffled by your dislike of capitalism when you are living it. There is still a chance to redeem yourself, Tunji, Sell all you posses and give it the proceeds to your less fortunate countrymen. Live a lifestyle that of the average Nigerian, while still making a good salary and divvying up the rest amongst the less fortunate. If you are unwilling to surrender your wealth to the collective good then I would suggest your socialism is enjoyed from arms length. Please explain…….
By: billstoke on September 19, 2009
at 10:44 pm
Ad hominem attack very uneccessary Mr. Stoke. Before you go telling him to sell all he posesses I suggest you be a prime example and do the same. The way he lives does not conflict with his views at all. He is just more fortuanate than most. As both you and I are.
By: Matthew on September 20, 2009
at 9:09 pm
This is not argumentum ad hominem as it does not meet the definition of the same. Tunjis’ claim to be socialist is not false because there is something wrong with Tunji, it is false because he is living a capitalistic lifestyle. It is not an attack in the least Matthew, it is simply a statement of fact. Why in todays society is truth confused with attacking?
I am a prime example of capitalism, this is what I am and claim to be. I am not duplistic in my beliefs and lifestyle, they match. In the same breath I live a simple life tithe to the Lord, volunteer regularly, donate blood, the list goes on. I do not do these things to go to Heaven, I do them because I am going to Heaven, big difference.
As a Christian I am responsible to hold my brothers in faith accountable, Tunji is a self proclaimed Christian, and I am asking an honest question of him. How can he live a capitalistic lifestyle and claim to be a socialist. Where is the attack? This attack stuff is language that is used to dodge and confuse the issue.
I am not upset that Tunji is more fortunate than most,l I am happy for him, that is what hard work gets you, a better life than someone who is less driven, what does that sound like to you?
Best Regards and God Bless,
Bill
By: billstoke on September 20, 2009
at 11:43 pm
Bill, you actually raises a fair point and I will look forward to Tunji’s response. At the very least, I think we have reason to ask if he is just pulling our leg (An American idiom for joking). I say this because there does seem to be a disconnect between Tunji’s ideology and his lifestyle.
I am reminded of Margaret Thatcher’s quip, that the reason socialism doesn’t work is “eventually you run out of other people’s money.” I am also reminded of a contrast someone drew between Princess Diana and Mother Teresa. You may recall that both died the same week. Diana died about a week earlier and the pundits were praising the “people’s princess” for her compassion for the poor. Then Mother Teresa died. This is what one very insightful pundit observed, “Diana felt so sorry for the poor that she visited them, worked in soup kitchens, and then returned to her palace. Mother Teresa felt so sorry for the poor that she became one of them. I thought this was an interesting distinction.
For me compassion is not saying: I see a poor person, and I see a rich person. The government should make that rich person give something to the poor. I think the right response is to give of ones own resources.
By: markcarlton on September 21, 2009
at 12:37 am
Pastor Mark
1 I see that my ‘socialist’ credentials are being questioned!
2 My laptop decided to pack up on my in this remote location where I am vacationing (I am not keen to use this business center again).
3 I will pick up the thread of conversation on return to Lagos later this week.My regards to all.Stay blessed,sirs.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 21, 2009
at 2:46 pm
Bill
I live a capitalist lifestyle and promote Socialism. My society is partially socialist as well so thats a fairly easy position for me to adhere to. I live a capitalist lifestyle as it is the only one availible. I seek to create change throug awareness and push a further socialist norm. Which is what I see as benficial. The fact is to me that I live in a capitalist society it does not impede my ability to promote socialism. If i were to renounce that way of living I would not be able to shoot for change now would I? The only way to bring about change is to use what you have to your advantage.
By: Matthew on September 23, 2009
at 6:59 pm
There is another alternative. You could, as Bill said to Tunji, do the following: Sell all you posses and give it the proceeds to your less fortunate countrymen. Live a lifestyle that of the [poor man], while still making a good salary and divvying up the rest amongst the less fortunate. If you are unwilling to surrender your wealth to the collective good then I would suggest your socialism is enjoyed from arms length. Amen.
By: markcarlton on September 23, 2009
at 7:28 pm
Mark
You must see where this is a faulty argument! I am being an advocate for change! I indeed already do submit a good deal of money to the less fortuanate (In the form of charities and a sponsor child) I also am still trying to go to school as without an education where would I be? By receiving a full education I can be a further advocate for change. This allows me to make the shift in societiy through an educated means.
If you wanted to help the poor what would you do? Sell everything (as you say) and give away that money then expect to still live a fruitfull life to help the poor? No my goos sir you start a charity or seek a change in society! To do this you must prepare yourself with knowledge and gain the skills to apply it and the means to create it!
By: Matthew on September 23, 2009
at 7:55 pm
Matthew,
I am impressed with your desire to make a positive change in the world, it is a lofty goal and a heavy burden. I wish to make change in the world as well, by consistently getting the good news of Jesus Christ out to those who have not received him.
If you look in an earlier post of mine you will see where I stated that socialism in its truest form is probably the most benevolent form of government, I stand by that statement. Socialism does not work because people are greedy. Maybe you are not greedy Matthew, but before all is said and done a Socialist society will be divided into two classes, the ultra rich elitists who run the system and the ultra poor who are at the mercy of the system.
Fact of the matter I do not think that man has created a form of government that will not become corrupt, again back to the nature of man himself. In a capitalist society the rules are in the open and fair, each according to his ability. If you are not able the state is benevolent enough not to let you starve or freeze to death, but those who are motivated will do well in this system.
Capitalism is also the mother of invention. Anyone can become rich overnight in the United States by inventing a better mouse trap or a time warp machine. In a socialist or communist society this entrepreneurial drive is squashed, innovation is sponsored by the state and the state reaps the rewards of the same. I would say this type of innovation is less inspired than that which happens when one is free.
Matthew, you can do more for the good of society by inventing, innovating and earning a lot and then giving to those who you think deserve it. If your beliefs are guided by the bible and Faith in Jesus the good that could be done is stupendous. Consider someone of Bill Gates wealth who was an Evangelical Christian. The possibilities are boggling. Philanthropy is an excellent reason to become wealthy, to be a benefactor to society is also a lofty goal. A Philanthropist who is Born Again into Christ is a God send.
I submit to you Matthew that one can do more good for society in an environment where he/she can become wealthy and use that wealth for the good of man kind than the same person could do in an equalizing system such as socialism.
Food for thought…..
Yours in Christ,
Bill
By: billstoke on September 23, 2009
at 9:23 pm
A very well thought out argument Mr Stoke. It is definately food for thought though I still stand by my Socialist beliefs. I thank you for your time and comments.
By: Matthew on September 23, 2009
at 9:33 pm
No, it is not a faulty argument at all. A poverty level lifestyle is possible. One can work their way through college, I did, and I never took a penny of government (other people’s) money to do. It can be done today too. It will take you longer but it still can be done.
Now, as to your question, what would I do to help the poor? I would give to the truly needy. As I said earlier, I do not have a problem with the government enforcing a minimum level of benevolence (For example, the Old Testament required landholders to leave the corners of their fields uncut and also to leave the gleanings for the poor. I think it would have been within a King of Israel’s rights and responsibilities to see that this was done). However, I know that the money would be better administered by states and local government. It would actually be administered best by private charity. For those who are able to work I would give them good solid, Biblical advise:
Ephesian 4:28; I Thessalonians 1:9a; 4:11-12; II Thessalonians 3:7-12. In addition to telling us who our physical needs are to be addressed, these verses also tell us how to procure money to help otheres. But in reading them I notice that not one word is said about looking to government to supply, nor does it say that we should seek to empower it to redistribute wealth…unless I’ve missed those passages
By: markcarlton on September 23, 2009
at 9:33 pm
Pastor Mark
On the supposed godlessness of communism.The standard proof-text of this is the sentence from the Communist Manifesto,where Marx said that religion is the opium of the masses.
This has been taken to be an anti religious declaration.But is this the case? Although not concerned with hermeneutics,interpretative rules for non-religious material are broadly similar to the hermeneutic ones.
What Marx was talking about was the historically observed tendency for the poorest sections of the population to also be the most conservative,bogged down by traditions,superstitions,and religion.A little sociological study will confirm this. It indeed is a historical fact that workers,peasants and other oppressed classes more often than not cling onto an unproductive,unreflective type of religious belief and worship-note that I did not say faith.
Marx therefore is right in saying that in the social conservatism that religion often engenders,it is a kind of narcotic or opium,inuring the suffering masses to their pitiable condition,and what may be done to build a more just,egalitarian society.
The recent Boko Haram fundamentalist Islamic uprising in Nigeria is a case in point.Hungry,homeless,largely illiterate lumpen proletariat rallied to a medieval form of Islam,extremely socially retrogressive,not unlike the Talibans.The uprising was ferociously put down by the Nigerian state.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 24, 2009
at 1:26 am
It’s clear that during the time of Christ there were many very poor people, and there were also wealthy people. Jesus asked a certain rich man to sell his great possessions and follow him, yet he wasn’t willing to. His wealth owned him. Whether for good or at times for evil, it seems to me that capitalism and the right to wealth and property are just the natural state of things.
Yet despite the differences between the rich and the poor, Jesus never advocates a revolution, or a change of the system. Instead, he argues in favor of charity from a willing heart. It always amazes me how some of these rich liberal politicians talk about how it is there duty and lifes work to raise up and help the poor. Seizing someone else’s property and giving it to the poor is not charity. Why don’t they set the example and give their own property to help the poor. In fact, what they are doing by redistributing income is denying other people the opportunity to help the poor, therefore they are denying people blessing’ from God, and the freedom to make those choices about what causes they want to help.
I think that the bible purposely doesn’t argue in favor of one form of government over another. There’s so many economic and technological and societal and cultural factors that influence what works and what doesn’t. For example, it may have been a generally educated electorate and Christian values of charity that has made our system so successful. It may not have worked at another time with other people. I do think that history teaches us that socialism doesn’t work. Its man playing God, and is especially susceptible toward corruption.
“Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage.” (Micah 2.1-2 KJV)
This passage is specifically talking about the rulers and authorities of Israel, who took advantage of their power and essentially robbed and oppressed the people. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t pay any taxes, but plundering the people was evil then and it is evil now. They always stack the deck so it favors themselves.
By: Cupofwrath.com on September 24, 2009
at 2:12 am
Bill Stoke
Pastor Mark
I appreciate your holding me accountable for my doctrine,utterances and actions.This is in the Christian tradition of genuine fellowship,where iron sharpens iron.
1 You should note that capitalism and socialism are not,have never been,and will never be ‘personal’ categories.By this I am saying that by definition,an individual can only live within the limits of the defining socio-political-economic milieu in which he finds himself,at least until there is movement towards,and establishment of a new society.
As such the life of Mr Stoke in today’s America cannot be devoid of the government-community ordained limits of business and social conduct.Neither can Tunji cocoon himself from the prevailing circumstance of his professional and economic-financial circumstances.It would be Utopian stupidity for Tunji to decline to receive his salary from his employer at the end of the month,claiming that he is ‘socialist’.His children’s’ school fees,fuel costs etc would quickly jolt him back to the reality of the society in which he lives.
2 To request sale of assets and distribution to the poor is also Utopian- it indeed reminds me of the kind of trick question asked Jesus by the teachers and scribes.And remember,even in the case of the rich young man,the request by Jesus that he sell all his possessions and follow him was a test of the man’s priorities in life-fidelity to Jesus,or fidelity to his balance sheet ?.It was not a test of the man’s ‘socialism’.
3 You may wish to note for example that the Castro family was one of the largest landowning families in Cuba before the Revolution(I wonder what happened to their family’s vast landholdings).Che Guevara the dentist came from an upper middle class professional Argentine family etc.
4 Now,in the transition to socialism,there are a variety of responses.Some for example descend into sheer anarchy.Pol Pot for example saw the socialist utopia in the emptying of towns,and the transfer of millions of people to the countryside.This movement of the population was carried out with extreme brutality.
Others realize that since we are talking about the reordering of social relations,it is a PROCESS that will necessarily take a long period of time.Now this period of transition is the most delicate.Several societies seem to stay in a perpetual ‘transition’ mode.
For example,I think the objective conditions in Cuba today can sustain multi party democracy,although this was not possible in the early 60s,at the start of the ruinous American economic blockade.President Raul Castro admitted in his recent anniversary speech,that there were a number of areas that required a rethink.Mr Gorbachev provided another example when he was in office.He described how he had observed Moscow children using a loaf of bread as a football.The state subsidy on wheat and flour production was so much that it cost almost nothing to buy bread! Maintaining such a level of subsidy,while market relations still partly prevailed,certainly made no economic sense.
5 As to the much touted freedom of the capitalist system,this is a myth.Ask the late Gus Hall or Angela Davis of the Communist Party USA,or Carl Dix the spokesman of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA,the extreme deprivation they have been put through because of their socio- political views.
6 I would like to illustrate this argument later with the life of a really great Nigerian who passed away a fortnight ago,Chief Ganiyu Fawehinmi.I’ve got sleep now!
Tunji
By: tunji on September 24, 2009
at 2:28 am
Cupofwrath
Pastor Mark
While Cupofwrath maintains that the Bible supplies us no pattern of government,Pastor Mark maintains that the Biblical model is right there in the Bible.
I think I shall greatly enjoy the developing discussion.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 24, 2009
at 2:54 am
Pastor Mark
I am watching right now on CNN a discussion with Michael Moore,especially on his film released today ‘Capitalism: A love story’.
Certainly Mr Moore is no fist clenching Marxist or communist- and I think you will agree with this.But he can clearly see that a system built on human greed cannot be one that will advance human progress.I found his activism for healthcare reform heartening. His criticisms of American capitalism are spot on.Maybe the gentleman should stand for elective office.There is only so much he can achieve with these documentaries.He does not see why 1% of Americans should own 95% of the USA wealth.
In conclusion,he seeks for a reformation of American ‘democracy’,saying the debate between socialism and capitalism is ’20th century’.I see here a man who clearly realizes the problems.Like the man Jesus told was not far from the Kingdom of God,I think Mr Moore is only a step away from realising what the true solution is.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 24, 2009
at 10:04 am
First, “Mr. Moore” is a Marxist, I think he WOULD agree with that, if he were asked. FYI, Moore has very little credibility with most Americans. He is seen as part of the leftest fringe of American politics. He radical’s radical.
Now let us talk about your more interesting points”
You said,
This is not true. There are Christian socialists in our country who have opted to live simple lives and give their surplus to the poor. I do not agree with their philosophy, but I admire their consistency. They practice what they preach. They believe in redistribution of wealth and they have started with their own. That, in my opinion, is the right place to start. An example of this would be Ron Sider. Again, I challenge you, in the words of Gandhi: “Be the change you desire.” Practice what you preach or don’t preach it.
You continued,
Freedom is not a myth. As an academic, Angela Davis has lives a very comfortable lifestyle. Professors are very well paid in the United States. It is interesting to note that this “high life” Ms. Davis enjoys was furnished for her through capitalism. So, hypocritically, she enjoys the fruits of capitalism while cursing the tree they came from. We call this, hypocrisy. The website, The American Thinker, published an excellent editorial by Matt Spivy on this very subject:
I would add that Ms. Davis, like Hall and Dix enjoyed celebrity in the circles they ran in, excercised their freedom of speech without restriction, and live(d) very comfortable lives, and whatever injuries they suffered alone the way were self-inflicted. Where else can someone attack the government and the establishment, as this trio did, and still gain celebrity status and live materially comfortable lives furnished by the bounty of the system they sought to destroy. Only in America.
Finally, Tunji, I did not say that there is a Biblical pattern for government, but principles for governance. There is a difference.
By: markcarlton on September 24, 2009
at 2:49 pm
I completely agree with this posts. This line especially interests me:
It interests me because of this line from on of the men who was instrumental in drafting our Constitution, John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
It is interesting that Tunji thought David Horowitz sounded like a member of the flat earth society when he is defending a system, socialism, that has failed everywhere it has been tried. Meanwhile, socialists seek to destroy the system that has produced the greatest amount of wealth and freedom, and distributed in more broadly, than any system the world has ever tried. The most capitalistic country in the world is America. The poor are better off here than anywhere else in the world. And yet the system is under attack. It just doesn’t make sense. It almost seems insane. If anything, the world should be seeking to copy what we have here, rather than attacking it. I note, that those nations that have followed our example are doing well, at least financially. It has been interesting, for example, to witness first hand the improvement in conditions in India over the last decade as they have embraced market economics. During the cold war they were in the soviet orbit and firmly committed to socialism. Now, the country is experience incredible economic growth and everyone is benefiting. Unlike America, the Hindu religion and it’s caste system is preventing the even distribution of this wealth. As a result there is still abject poverty. But that is another story. The point is, capitalism creates wealth, socialism redistributes it. It can only redistribute the wealth created by the capitalist, because it destroys the incentive for production of any additional capital. This is what Putin was warning against in the article I linked in my Horowitz post. His warning is worth considering.
By: markcarlton on September 24, 2009
at 3:16 pm
Sorry, Tunji, I overlooked this. You said,
I am familiar with this statement, and I know what Marx meant by it (your summary is correct). But as anyone familiar with Marx knows (and I am familiar with him) his atheism was far deeper than this one statement. Those of us familiar with Marx know well what is being referred to when we speak of “dialectic materialism.”
I do not know anything about the Boko Haram uprising. Our media has more important things to cover, like Michael Jackson (joke). Seriously, I have great sympathy for those forced to live in the abject poverty you write of. But I am glad the government stopped the implimentation of their dream, a socially retrogressive Taliban like regime. I wish these poor people would have turned to something better, like capitalism. All socialism will do for them is keep them alive, and poor, and dependent on the very government which brutally put down their uprising. This too is one of the evils of socialism. It keeps the poor dependent on their oppressor. You see, Tunji, the more govenment the less freedom. The less government the more freedom. More government is not the answer, more government is the problem. Wherever the power of the government increasess the power of the people to resist it decreases.
By: markcarlton on September 24, 2009
at 5:29 pm
Pastor Mark
1 You really should speak for yourself when you characterize Mr Moore as a Marxist,and not speak for the majority of Americans.He certainly was given an opportunity today to identify himself as a Marxist when he was asked what the solution to the kind of financial peccadilloes that led to the meltdown was.He answered ‘more democracy’ to Larry King’s question,not Marxist economics,or socialist revolution.But,you are right in situating Mr Moore on the left of the political spectrum in America.
I have no doubt that several other Americans would consider Mr Moore as a patriot,genuinely concerned with some excesses of the American economy and society,and concerned with REFORM of the system,not Marxist revolution.
I had a vague feeling I had heard this kind of scare mongering before.Then,I recalled President Ronald Reagan,who ‘saw’ a communist behind every bush.When poor,hungry,disenfranchised people rose up to demand their rights anywhere in the world,he always saw some communist lurking behind them.I think you see a Marxist conspiracy behind every opinion on the left that does not agree with your own,possibly.
2 Your simplistic reductionism is baffling- ‘capitalism creates wealth’,'socialism redistributes wealth’.Sounds once again like the Reaganite reductionism.If things really were this simple,the world would be a much easier place to live in!
Redistribute your assets to the poor- that is the challenge you throw down to prove my ‘socialism’.Even if I did,that is no more than a pin prick.At the societal level,which is where such things count,it would have absolutely no effect.The test of one’s position simply is not the personal giving away.
3 You claim that some ‘Christian socialists’ give away a substantial part of their income,and live simply on the balance.You see a Biblical pattern of governance which is non-socialist,but apparently do not see a contradiction in terms in being socialist,and Christian,by your definitions.
By the way,my wife and I are involved in considerable acts of charity,within our means.But this is not motivated by a desire to redistribute on socialistic terms.We are motivated by the Biblical injunctions to share,especially with persons who are of the household of God.
4 I was going to give the example of Chief Gani Fawehinmi(you may Google the name to find out more about him).He died 2 weeks ago at the age of 71 years.A leading lawyer,human rights activist,politician.
It is said that Gani handled more than 5000 cases of widows,orphans,trade unionists,leftist politicians,college students,absolutely free of charge.He gave generously to crippled,beggars etc.Indeed it was one such blind beggar that dedicated the house in which this great man died.He challenged injustice,repression,corruption in the law courts.Beaten several times,passport seized,incarcerated several times,he gave his all for the fellow human being.This is my personal tribute to this outstanding human being( unless he gave his life to Christ a few days or hours before passing away,he died a Muslim).
But what is the point in all this,you may ask.He struggled on for at least 25 years,a one man terror to corrupt ,oppressive civilian or military Nigerian governments.But he must have realized at some point that it is only with political power that the kind of society wide change he dreamt of could come to pass.He was not until his death a socialist or Marxist,but founded the National Conscience Party in the 1980s.
Note:
1 Gani’s acts of charity were many and legendary,but they had little or no effect on the poverty level in Nigeria.
2 Definitely,Gani remained among the elite Nigerians,in terms of personal wealth.
3 The solution to the political-social-economic problems,would have to start at the political level.
I will take up the other matters later,sir.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 24, 2009
at 9:43 pm
Wew! So much to respond to! *sigh* let’s start with Moore. Let’s start wit this: when you talk to me about Marxism you are not talking to an uninformed man. We both know that Marxists talk much about democracy. It is part of their appeal. Thus, they call their countries things like, “The People’s Republic of Whatever” The Russian term, soviet, referred to elected governmental councils. I am not impressed, then, when Michael Moore says — If I can paraphrase — “Power to the people.” So let’s quit pretending here.
Also, Moore is too smart to openly say “I am a communist.” Though you despise him, this is still a country that greatly admires Ronald Reagan. The proof of this is a recent Rasmussen pole that showed the all political labels except for one are view negative by Americans, except for one: being like Ronald Reagan. I for one am honored that you would compare me to him. I consider him the only great president in my life time (with the possible exception of Truman, but I too young to remember him). But Moore’s attack on capitalism in his new movie makes it pretty clear where he is coming from. He would have gotten along fine with Karl Marx. Neither value(d) personal hygiene.
One final point; I am not speaking “just for myself,” when I say that Moore is regarded as a fanatic. He is indeed considered part of the lunatic left by most Americans. Even mainline liberals deliberately distance themselves from him.
As for your other points, economic theory is not as difficult as you make it. There is nothing simplistic about saying that capitalism creates wealth. America is the proof. Nor is it simplistic to say that socialism redistributes wealth. That, my friend, is why you have been defending it. It is not simplistic to say that socialism does not create wealth. Show me where it has happened.
I don’t understand the rest of your argument. Sorry. I commend your personal charity. I see this as the sort of things Christians do, and I think you have the right to enjoy your private property and wealth. You’ve earned it. I just have problems with your thinking it is alright to take your neighbor’s money and give it to the poor, or empowering the government to do it “legally” for you. Plunder is plunder.
As far as the benevolent man you mentioned. I don’t see the relevance. But from what you say I does seem that your society needs to change. I suggest capitalism. It’s worked very well for us.
By: markcarlton on September 24, 2009
at 10:23 pm
Pastor Mark
1 As to the Boko Haram uprising ,you certainly can read more about it if you Google ‘Boko Haram’.
I need only add that while the immediate manifestation of the crisis was an Islamic fundamentalist uprising,the root cause was the failure of the Nigerian capitalist state. But then,your recommended panacea is capitalism…
2 On Chief Gani Fawehinmi,the point really is that even with his immense acts of charity(he gave out more than 100 scholarships to indigent students,for example, every year)it had no effect whatsoever on the general level of poverty in Nigeria.These are matters of society wide change,not possible by individual effort alone.Also,society wide change needs to be propelled,most importantly,at the political level.
3 On Moore who you characterized as unwashed lunatic fanatic,I do not see him as such.I think several other bloggers will not see him as you see him.
4 On Ms Davis,you probably would expect her to give away all her earnings as a Professor of Philosophy,to advance the socialist cause.
You also make the incredible assertion that the American capitalist system treated these 3 with kid gloves. You indeed say that any harm done to them must have been self-inflicted.Simply Google Gus Hall to see what he has been through.Also you may wish to Google ‘political prisoners in the USA’.
Every known system in the world will do its best to preserve the existing system,as there are always those who gain and those who lose in the overall scheme of things.Even so,in divides along denominational Christian lines.You know for example what happened to Martin Luther after he pasted the 95 Theses.Hans Kung was not treated with kid gloves when he challenged the official teaching of the Catholic Magisterium.
Tunji
By: tunji on September 25, 2009
at 9:16 am
You observed:
This is true, but what you and your friend, Karl Marx, fail to realize in saying this is that there are some existing systems worth preserving. Goodness and light does not always lie with the revolutionary, and change is not always for the better. Often the existing order, while not perfect, is better than what the revolutionaries replace it with.
This has proven to be the case in every country in which communist revolutionaries have triumphed. “Power to the people!” they say on the day the seize power. The next day they take away the people’s freedom and mow them down by the thousands and even millions. But it is justified! “After all, “they say, “You have to break some eggs to make an omelette.” But when we look at the record we are stunned with how many millions have died in Communist/socialist attempts to create Utopia. And the number enslaved is even greater?
I am sorry for the kind of capitalism you have seen. I do not doubt that godless capitalism is as bad as godless socialism. But, until recent decades, that is not the kind of capitalism we have seen in this country. We have seen the abuses of capitalism, to be sure, but, as I said earlier, the abuses have been tempered and reformed because of the Christianized conscience that is still deeply ingrained in the American psyche…though it is dying (Someone has quiped, Americans remember enough of their Christianity to feel guilty, but not enough to know how to be saved).
I think Cupofwrath’s observation is worth considering at this point: “It may have been a generally educated electorate and Christian values of charity that has made our system so successful. It may not have worked at another time with other people.” But, as he also pointed out, history has shown us that despite it’s Utopian promises, Marxism and socialism are not the answer.
Pragmatically speaking, capitalism has this going for it; with all its flaws, it works. On the other hand, socialism, though long on promise, has always been short on performance. Communism has always resulted in governements that murder and enslave their own people. But ultimately, the answer is Christ.”
By: markcarlton on September 25, 2009
at 1:42 pm
The pure type of Capitalism in the US does not work. It has been broken for ages and you refuse to awknowledge this. The US was rocked hard by the most recent economic crisis and in good form Obama is simply trying to catch up with the rest of the world by implimenting some socialist policies that might stabilize your economy. If a mixed socialist system is good enough for the rest of the world I fail to see why America thinks its better/
By: Matthew on September 26, 2009
at 8:10 pm
What do you mean U.S. type capitalism doesn’t work. Take a drive south and check it out. We are still the most free, the richest and most powerful nation on earth, in spite of our current economic situation and a Marxist president.
I agree with you that Obama is using the current “crisis” — which was caused by government’s “compassionate” interference in the housing markets — to try to “catch up the with the world. I’m glad you agree with me that his goal is socialism.
Actually, had he and Bush just let nature take its course we would be in a robust recovery by now. His interference in the market has only prolonged the crisis, which, as his cheif of staff has said, is a good thing because crisis funishes the disciples of Alinsky with an opporunity “too good to waste”.
Why do we think we are better? That’s simple. Our system has worked better than anything else that has ever been tried. This is what happened: the founders of our nation thought they had a better idea. It turned out, they were right. It’s that simple.
A more intellectual statement is contained in several of my more thoughtful posts. There were two revolutions, the American and the French. The American revolution worked wonderfully. The rhetoric of French Revolution, based on Enlightenment humanism, sounded much more appealing. And so Europe has been trying — with mixed results — to make it work ever since.
By: markcarlton on September 26, 2009
at 10:59 pm
Pastor Mark
On the proper characterization of fascism,you may wish to consider the undernoted,all available here: http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism.
Business dictionary
‘Doctrine,collection of concepts and dictatorship by government of a country,often involving hostile nationalistic attitudes,racism,and private economic ownership under rigid government control’
US military dictionary
‘An authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government and social organization’
Political dictionary
‘A right wing nationalistic ideology or movement with a totalitarian and hierarchical structure fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism’
Britannia Concise Encyclopedia
‘Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state,unquestioning obedience to its leader,subordination of the individual will to the state’s authority,and harsh suppression of dissent’
History dictionary
‘…Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism,fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production,nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality…’
Tunji
By: tunji on October 5, 2009
at 9:38 pm
Thanks for the definitions. The one I like best is Britannia Concises and History Dictionary. Though I think the battling definitions creates a problem. It seems the term may be to plastic to be useful.
By: markcarlton on October 6, 2009
at 7:58 pm