Capitalism vs Socialism

The economic systems of our world are constantly evolving. New technologies and the globalization of our world constantly present new obstacles that summon fresh solutions and innovative ideas. These advancements keep the markets rocking and reeling across the world.

While there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of unique economic systems throughout the history of the nations, there are basic moorings at the foundation of the world’s economy, amidst the ever-changing tides and fast-paced flow of our financial world, which will never change. These social arrangements for the monetary world can basically be reduced to two doctrines of finance: capitalism and socialism.

Each of these schools of thought ask a basic question: “Will the power of decision be given to a very small group of ‘really smart’ fellows, or will the power of decision be given to the individuals among the masses?” The capitalist believes in individual responsibility and wishes to spread the power of decision to the people. In contrast, the socialist believes the “elite” should have this power, while the rest of the population fulfills their duty to accept whatever role is decided for them.

If either of these two doctrines of finance are scrutinized carefully, one is not hard-pressed to point out the glaring flaws and shortcomings created by both philosophies of finance. While there are many reasons for those flaws, those with a biblical world-view know that the source of all failures, mishaps, and shortcomings, can be isolated to one, simple concept – sin. So long as man is involved, there will be problems… period… particularly when it is the issue of the production of goods and services, deciding how they will be used, and who will or will not be allowed or privileged to enjoy them. More specifically, problems will arise when the issue revolves around money.

“For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” -1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV)

That said, if one wishes to understand and obey the biblical teachings of finance, it will not be productive to enter the argument of “which economic system is right” by attempting to list a long trail of historical failures for the opposing view’s system of economic values. Since both financial philosophies (capitalism and socialism) are cursed by the contamination of sinful man’s involvement, they will both share the presentation of a lengthy list of failures. For example, as commonly as the socialist accuses the capitalist of “greed,” the capitalist may just as well retort that the socialist is filled with “envy.” Again, wherever sinful man is involved, it is likely that both will be true.

What does the Bible say? Which of these two philosophies agrees with the teachings of the Bible? This is where the argument, for the true Christian, must begin and end. Herein is the purpose of this treatise on the subject.

Our primary need is to know the written Word of God! We must be obedient to 2 Timothy 2:15, which states:

“STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the WORD of truth.”

The “word of truth” is the Greek word “logos,” which refers to the written Word of God. As we “study to show ourselves approved” by meditating upon the written Word, a process of renewal becomes available to our physical mind; however, this renewal doesn’t necessarily take place until we complete a startup sequence. How do we complete the sequence and begin the process? We begin by submitting to the Bible as the final authority on all things and by replacing our former world-view with the world-view of God as delineated in the Bible. Our submission to biblical truths is proven by our willingness to remove and replace our previous personal opinions on any and all subjects with what the Bible plainly teaches. For example, if we read something in the Bible which contradicts what we have previously believed, we simply conclude that our understanding has been in error and choose to “change our mind” in a spirit of meekness.

The simple reason that many Christians never come to a place of mental renewal through the washing of scripture is that when you get right down to it, they read the Word of God with the hope of validating their own personal opinions. They wrap the Word of God around their human opinion and experience rather than wrapping their human opinions around the Word of God. This group of self-serving “believers” mocks the ignorance of jungle-dwelling idol worshippers in deep Africa and South America, calling such “ignorant savages.” As far as God is concerned, they are no better. Their own actions are nothing more than a higher evolutionary form of the same, with one exception: the carved statue has been replaced with something easier to hide…opinions.

Those who accept the Bible as God’s inspired Word based upon the extraordinary amount of physical, scientific, geological, botanical, archeological, astronomical, historical, and nearly endless amounts of practical evidence, not to mention the witness of the human spirit, need nothing more than to read it in order to truly believe it…need nothing more than to believe it in order to act upon it…need nothing more than to act upon it to prove they are the true sons and daughters of God.

So this renewal begins when we approach the Word of God with the firm conviction that His Word is the final and perfect authority on all subjects, including finances! Paul describes it in Romans 12:2:

“And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” -Romans 12:2 (KJV)

Capitalism is an economic system that functions on the premise of five basic building blocks. It is through the use of these five building blocks that it is believed a people will be most prospered. The building blocks of simple capitalism are listed as follows:

1. Land
2. Labor
3. Capital
4. Private ownership and controls
5. Very little, if any, governmental interference

To begin, let us examine the issue of “land” in the Bible, for it is the first building block of the philosophy of capitalism. We must ask the questions, “What did Moses and Jesus (both mediators of a heavenly covenant) believe about land ownership?” Should men view land as a commodity that is “owned by the state” or the “really smart fellows”? Should citizens view themselves as “stewards” or “lessees” of the government, as the socialists proclaim? Or, in contrast to this view, should men view their land as something “owned by God,” while the inhabitants view themselves as “stewards” or “temporary owners” of something granted to them by its Creator? Moses writes:

“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord.” -Leviticus 25:2 (KJV)

A few verses later, Moses declares the temporary nature of land ownership, with regard to a man’s lifespan, when he writes:

“The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.” -Leviticus 25:23 (KJV)

Along these lines, Adam Clark writes, “by this [verse, they were to] be put in mind of the necessity of having a permanent dwelling in the heavenly inheritance, and of that preparation without which it could not be possessed.” As to the concept of private ownership of property, Moses continues in the next passage:

“And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.” -Leviticus 25:24 (KJV)

New Unger’s Bible Dictionary states: “Israel was taught that she had conquered Canaan only by the help of Jehovah (Psalm 44:3), and that the land was and remained the property of Jehovah, the covenant God (Leviticus 25:23). Though the land was promised to the children of Israel for an everlasting possession (Genesis 13:15-16), yet their retaining it was conditional on their faithful fulfillment of its covenant obligations (Leviticus 26:32-45; Deut. 4:26-30), and even the ground did not become Israel‘s property in such a way that the possessor could dispose of it as he willed.”

Moreover, Jesus endorsed the precedent of Hebrew law concerning private land ownership in His parable of the manager. It reads:

Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’ … [11] So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?” -Luke 16:1-2 & 11: (NIV)

Jesus concludes this story given for the purpose of teaching men to rid themselves of laziness and complacency – to use adversity as a stimulus for creative, industrious, economic survival, He asks the question:

“Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.” -Matthew 21:33 (KJV)

Then there was the parable of the vineyard owner who leased his land to a caretaker before embarking on a long journey. This begs the question, “How does one lease to others what one does not own?” It reads as follows:

“Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth [leased it] to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.” -Luke 20:9 (KJV) (Emphasis added.)

With regard to private property ownership, the Bible goes so far as to warn those who would abuse this privilege through the sin of monopoly. The prophet Isaiah warns:

“Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!” -Isaiah 5:8 (KJV)

Clearly, one with a biblical world-view who considers both Old Testament law and New Testament instruction from the parables of the Lord Jesus, must believe in: 1) private ownership; 2) personal responsibility; and 3) diligent hard work. More specifically, we Christians are obliged to acknowledge that the basic tenets of capitalism are the most biblical of their counterpart, socialism. In defiance to this biblical view of economics, socialism “requires that the state abolish private ownership of the means of production, such as land and industrial plants, and replace them with ‘public [state] ownership and control’.” (Source: Encyclopedia International, Volume 6, Copyright 1963, Grolier Inc.)

In summary,

the origin of the Christian pro-capitalism position is grounded on divine authority and the belief that God is the owner of this earth, and therefore, has the right to give it to whom He wills, without any interference on the part of those who would attempt to usurp and replace Him with either themselves or their economic theories.

James Madison, one of America’s noblest founders, nicknamed the “Father of the Constitution,” said,

“[It] is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions . . . deny to part of its citizens [the] free use of their facilities.”

So what of socialism? Beyond what has already been explained, what more do they believe, and why are their beliefs in such opposition to the scriptures? Let us begin to answer these necessary questions with a brief review of God’s purpose in the creation of all forms of government, according to Romans chapter 13.

The three authority structures created by God to order this fallen world (the government of the spiritual family, the government of the natural family, and civil government) work together like a well-oiled machine when all three operate within their biblical parameters. The problems begin when one area fails to obey its scriptural mandate. The Bible gives thorough instructions to all three forms of government. To the spiritual family is given a beautiful and comprehensive blueprint for building an efficient, healthy, and powerful local church through peace. To the natural family is given a thoroughly furnished set of guidelines on how to parent, as well as how to be a husband or wife. To the civil government is given unparalleled sensible instructions and parameters by precept and example. All three derive their right to exist from the written Word of God, but cease to function in peace when those parameters are sidestepped, ignored, “re-interpreted,” or misaligned.

For example, it was never in the plan of God for the civil government to care for the needy, the hurting, and the unemployed. The mentality which places responsibility for these types of things upon the government is inappropriate according to the parameters set for civil government in the scriptures. (This is one reason why socialism is such a poor form of government and should never be endorsed by Christians.) You see, social programs are the duty of the spiritual family government (the church), not the civil government. When one form of government fails to carry out its predetermined role in the earth by shirking responsibility, the other two are left trying to fix a problem they were never equipped by God to deal with. The results are disastrous. The function of civil government is clearly shown in the scriptures to fulfill the purpose of providing order and protection for the citizens by carrying out the “ministry of retribution.” This is to be contrasted with the church’s purpose of carrying out the “ministry of reconciliation.”

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For the [civil authority] is the MINISTER of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the MINISTER OF GOD, a REVENGER to EXECUTE WRATH upon him that doeth evil.” -Romans 13:3-4

“And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.” -2 Corinthians 5:18: (KJV)

When the government tries to deal with social troubles, it creates new problems in society as quickly as it alleviates others. Why? Because in doing so, it has left the boundaries of its source of authority. For example, look at the devastating effect the socialistic welfare system has had upon both the Indian-American and African-American communities. All one need do is simply drive through a predominantly ethnic neighborhood to see the tragic results of the socialist welfare mentality. Welfare is the result of a doctrinally anemic church failing to obey its complete purpose in the earth. It is not the design of God for the civil government to be the sole source for solving social problems.

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” -Acts 4:32

While the phrase “had all things in common” has been incorrectly presented by some as evidence that “socialism and/or communism are forms of government endorsed by God, in the light of what we have uncovered so far, we should early understand that this verse actually describes the characteristics of a church walking in the power, not of socialism or communism, but of corporate peace. This particular church is said to have been “of one heart” and “of one soul,” and neither portrayal, historically speaking, has ever been true of socialistic or communistic societies. Furthermore, the phrase “had all things in common” is a direct reference to this body of believers’ unselfish state of mind, not their political persuasion. After all, how is it that the local church is said to attain the power of unity on a corporate level?

“Endeavouring to keep the UNITY of the Spirit in the BOND of PEACE.” -Ephesians 4:3

Socialism is contrary to the ways of God because it attempts to reach a utopian state where ALL people are provided with life’s necessities through the elimination of social classes, specifically what is called the “hierarchy.” It is believed by the socialist that the redistribution of wealth upon all men in equal sum is the most righteous act of a government. Since heaven itself is based upon the principles of a perfect “hierarchy,” little needs to be said with regard to this fundamentally blatant error. This idealist concept of providing “free” food, housing, healthcare, and education, however well-meaning it may seem, flies in the face of God’s love laws, primarily by rewarding sin. To say that “ALL men are NOT industrious” would be an understatement, and God forbids that lazy men should be pampered and rewarded. Jesus’ words entirely trounce the socialist mindset when He states the following:

“For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” -Matthew 13:12

Socialism strives for a pseudo-equality, yet it was Jesus, after all, who taught that men WOULD NOT live equally in heaven, but that there would be those who were called the “least” of the kingdom as much as there would be those who were called the “greatest.” (See Matthew 5:19.) If this is true of heaven, and heaven is perfect, then the socialist may be among the most arrogant of their kind, for they suggest the ability to outperform the very kingdom of heaven in the arena of what they call “fairness.”

In these ways, socialists actually create poverty by undermining incentive and rewarding inactivity with unearned income benefits. Since it is the sinful nature of man to follow the path of least resistance and self-gratification, men who are guaranteed income (only on the basis of having been born) are less likely to produce inventions, cures, and technology for the betterment of others in society, all of which are produced through diligence and hard work. When they need only to enjoy eating, drinking, and merriment in order to live a comfortable life of government handouts, why would they subject themselves to the strain of an occupation? Consider the Apostle Paul’s words as he addressed persons in the early church who mooched off the church community.

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” -2 Thessalonians 3:10

Socialism is also wrong in that its tenets assume that “wealthy” people (apparently anyone who has more money than a socialist) are inherently “greedy” and must have made their money through the exploitation of the poor. As I pointed out earlier, as quickly as the socialist accuses the capitalist of being “greedy,” one might just as easily remind the socialist of his own intrinsic envy. While there have no doubt been men who have made money at the expense of others, the scriptures teach us that men can also achieve prosperity through hard-working obedience and perseverance, while simultaneously caring for the poor in a spirit of generosity. Cornelius, the centurion of Acts 10:1-2, is case in point.

Furthermore, socialism is contrary to the design of God for civil government because it attempts to replace the function of the church in the earth with itself. The Bible provides the church, not a socialist civil authority, with the guidelines for administering loving financial and social assistance. For instance, 1 Timothy 5:9-13 establishes the requirements by which widows are to be enrolled in a church relief program. They are as follows:

1. The widow must be at least 60 years old and can only have been married once.
2. They need to have maintained a good reputation among the rest of the church family.
3. They must have reared their children properly according to the biblical standard set for Christian parents.
4. They must have been hospitable to strangers and entertained guests in their home. (Give and it shall be given unto you.)
5. They must be humble, with a servant’s heart, evidenced by their willingness to wash the feet of other believers.
6. They must have a reputation for having helped others when they had needs.
7. They are required to have shown diligence in their work ethic.

These seven prerequisites for social assistance further illustrate God’s system of law called “love.” The side of love which embraces and accepts a person is seen addressing the need for caring assistance to be given to widows who have endured the loss of their loved ones. But the side of love which brings about justice in the eyes of God also reveals what kind of widows the local church should NOT assist. God’s love is not only seen through acceptance but also in His rejection. You see, love would never reward sin. Love does not give handouts to persons who have reaped a harvest of poverty through the disobedience of laziness, only to clamor for relief in the name of “Christian love.” Therefore, when a local church gives financial assistance to persons known for gossip and discord, the pastor responsible for giving them aid is, in the eyes of God, endorsing sin by applying inappropriate assistance. It removes consequences that would otherwise serve to train the sinner “the hard way.” These biblical principles which address social action aren’t “hard-hearted,” “unloving,” “harsh,” “begrudging,” “self-righteous,” “bigoted,” or any of the other wrongful titles they are often given by the willfully ignorant, for they are the will of God Himself, and He is the antithesis of all the choice words just listed.

Imagine the enormous lawsuit the A.C.L.U. would file against the federal government if they attempted to abide by these God-given requirements before handing out social aid packages, and I think you’ll understand the problems that we get into when we support socialistic political platforms. Take these seven stipulations placed upon church widows seeking financial and/or social care that were given by the church fathers and contrast them with the stipulations set forth in the American welfare system, and you’ll find pointed disagreement. You see, God WILL NOT TOLERATE the rewarding of sin. It was and is expected today, that as a member of the church, you SHALL NOT receive financial assistance or otherwise when you have not lived right. Yet as America has succumbed to the socialist influence of Europe, the more children that an American woman has out of wedlock, the more financial aid she is given.

Consider the results of the natural family shirking their responsibilities. Men (in many cases boys) with the self-control of a stray dog, impregnate women for whom they care nothing about and leave them to rear their children fatherless. When the children aren’t reared properly, because the mother has become the breadwinner by default, this causes problems in the community. So what happens? The government and/or the church must step in and attempt to salvage what is left of the poorly trained children; otherwise, they are left to face a hostile world without the necessary tools for success. It is neither the church’s nor the civil government’s place to meddle with child rearing. The outcome is rarely a glorious story of miraculous human achievement; it is often a story of utter failure.

The scenarios are really endless. Social peace is only practical on a large scale when these three governments have found their proper place in the world and stay in line with the Word of God. So how does this realignment take place? It begins with the highest form of government and works its way down the line until all three are realigned. The CHURCH MUST FIRST TAKE THEIR RIGHTFUL PLACE, “seated at the right hand of the Father” in Christ Jesus. The cross of Jesus was the beginning of the restorative realignment process. The Bible prophesies that this process will finalize in the grand culmination of Christ’s return to the earth at the close of the tribulation. It is then that He will set up His earthly millennial kingdom of peace.

To this some have said, “Why should we bother with trying to correct a world that the Bible predicts will be uncorrectable outside of the return of Christ?” The answer is found in asking another similar question: Should we continue to preach and act against murder when we know that we will never be able to prevent it from occurring? How many murders do you suppose have occurred since the day God inscribed that particular one of the Ten Commandments? Perhaps God wasted His time? Here is another question: Should we continue to support the efforts of law enforcement to stop drug trafficking when we all recognize the reality that the problem is bigger than what law enforcement is able to handle? The answer, of course, to both of these questions is a resounding “YES!”

It is just as true that “universal peace” will never encompass the globe until the return of Christ, as it is that we will always have to deal with poverty. (See Mark 14:7.) So why should we put forth effort to reject socialism and purvey capitalistic biblical values? Why should we “waste our time” trying to improve a failing world? Because Jesus, speaking to folks who lived in the same messed-up world as you and I do, said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” It is our very nature. It is who we are. It is a sign in the road on the way to destruction that flashes “TURN AROUND” to the endangered pilgrim. And if it be the choice of my neighbor to run toward his own destruction, then let it be said that he did so with me pulling, kicking, and screaming behind him the entire way.

“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” -Galatians 5:14

Steve Avery of Online Highways LLC writes, “Because of the Cold War, McCarthyism, and dominance of the ‘Middle American’ values, the Communist and Socialist parties virtually disappeared in the 1950s, when membership fell to below 2,000 members. Many Socialists left the party because it was seen that more progressive reform could be achieved through membership in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Among those who departed were: Walter Reuther, Philip Randolph, and Bayard Rustin.” (Emphasis added.)

Avery continues, “The effects of socialism in America can still be felt today. According to the Future of Freedom Foundation, any government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized operation is considered to be a socialist program. For example, publicly owned airports, sports arenas or government-funded universities would be considered socialist operations by that definition. The Social Security Act of 1935, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal creations, is seen by many as a socialist program because it is a government-organized and -regulated system. Social Security was designed to provide retirement benefits to citizens through mandatory donations to the program during one’s employment years.”

It is unfortunate that the hybridization of socialism and capitalism, stemming from the socialist takeover of the Democratic Party in the 1950s, has created such problems in today’s American economy. A largely uneducated population, on both sides of the aisle, due, in part, to the emergence of those void of biblical mores (coined as “moderate republicans”) take up the issue of “how to fix social security” as well as “how to fix Medicare” in nearly every congressional and presidential election.

Those with an accurate biblical worldview, however, understand that the problem with social security and Medicare is that they exist in defiance to the proper role of government described in the scriptures. In short, the problem with social security and Medicare is that they ever existed in the first place. They simply don’t work, because socialism won’t work.

Avery states, “During the [democrat] Clinton administration, a plan was proposed to bring down the high costs of health insurance by creating national health insurance. Critics of the national health insurance concept labeled it ‘socialized medicine’ and argued that the individual, not the federal government, had the wisdom and capability to manage his or her own affairs. They argued that deregulation of the health care industry and opening it up to the free market would bring the cost of health care down and increase the availability of care to the American public, which national health insurance would not do…Clinton’s most notable campaign promise, to reform health care (with the task force led by Hillary Clinton), was shot down in a ball of flames by conservatives…The 1994 elections proved to be ominous for the Democrats; they lost control over both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. The Republican majority began to flex their collective muscle by bringing to the table their ‘Contract with America’.”

As educated, conservative, Bible-believing Christians have continued to answer the call to run for office, the tide of nationalistic corruption, engendered by the atheist/humanist/socialist/homosexual/abortionist vice of the Democratic Party, has been dealt a significant blow to their ability to resonate with the average American. We can only pray that this trend will continue so that a final great awakening can come before the Lord Jesus returns for His church.