Fearsome Comrade has some insightful thoughts about the nature of socialism:
An important difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism promises salvation delivered from on high, while the only thing capitalism can promise is competition. Because of this, socialism can be preached in much the same manner as the Christian gospel is preached. You can take a typical Christian evangelistic message, replace the words “sin” with “profit,” “Satan” with “Big Business,” “God” with “the government,” “Jesus” with the politician of the hour, and “salvation” with “social justice,” and you’ve got an appeal to socialism. This struck me as I read some excerpts of Marx and Engels. Ultimately, they didn’t build their system with an appeal to reason. They built it on evangelistic zeal, apocalyptic vision, and powerful appeals to a coming paradise.
November 3rd, 2009 | 8:34 pm | #1
Nice to see someone else thinking in these terms. John Gray’s book “Black Mass” explains the history behind this post-millennial apocalyptic fervor very well (apart from taking a few liberties, and being an Objectivist).
November 3rd, 2009 | 8:46 pm | #2
Not only Socialism, but today’s Liberalism is essentially the same thing. Machen’s insight into the difference between Liberalism and Christianity still applies today. Christians need to think of Liberalism as a false religion that stands in total antithesis to biblical Christianity. This might also help in arguing whey Christians cannot be Liberal or support those who are, namely most Democrats.
November 3rd, 2009 | 9:49 pm | #3
Evangelical socialism? Isn’t that Campoloism?
November 3rd, 2009 | 9:50 pm | #4
Yeah, this is right on. No one becomes a communist because they’re convinced by the arguments in Das Kapital. Rather, as with his spiritual father Rousseau, Marx’s appeal is in his vision and promises…
November 4th, 2009 | 3:00 am | #5
The debt of socialism and communism to Christian language and worldview is pretty clear.
But then, pretty much any worldview developed in the west in the past 1,000 years shares that same shape of fall, redemption and future restoration in some form. The “New Atheists” are one example, and it would be just as simple to point to “evangelistic” rhetoric in support of capitalism in the same way as FC (and tell us as much of actual use about the diverse phenomenon of capitalism(s) as FC’s post tells us about the diverse phenomenon of socialism(s)).
Replace “sin” with “socialism”, “Satan” with “the government”, “Jesus” with “free markets” and “salvation” with the vision of “a nation of free people living without governmental interference”, and voila! – you have the emotional appeal of right-libertarianism.
November 4th, 2009 | 5:20 am | #6
The debt of socialism and communism to Christian language and worldview – particularly the teleology of fall, redemption and future restoration – is pretty clear, and FC is far from the first to point it out.
But then, pretty much any worldview developed in the west in the past 1,000 years shares that same shape in some form. The “New Atheists” are one example, and it would be just as simple to point to “evangelistic” rhetoric in support of capitalism along the same lines as FC’s post (and it would tell us as much of actual use about the diverse phenomenon of capitalism(s) as FC’s post tells us about the diverse phenomenon of socialism(s)).
So: replace “sin” with “religion”, “Satan” with “God”, “Jesus” with “free-thinking” (as atheists use that term) and “salvation” with “a world free from religion” and you have the New Atheists.
Replace “sin” with “socialism”, “Satan” with “the government”, “Jesus” with “free markets” and “salvation” with the vision of “a nation of
free, prosperous people living without governmental interference”, and voila! – you have the emotional appeal of right-libertarianism.
November 4th, 2009 | 5:21 am | #7
[Note: hadn't realised comments were moderated. Thought the first version of my comment had got lost. Please can you delete the first version and post the second - and also delete *this* comment! Thanks.]
November 4th, 2009 | 7:30 am | #8
I don’t see this supposed difference between capitalism and socialism. Far from promising only competition, supposedly capitalism is the only way to a flourishing, free society with prosperity and opportunity. If socialism is a rival gospel, capitalism can be and has been turned into a gospel just as easily.
I’d love to see the Republicans running their next campaign on “We can’t promise you anything except competition.”
November 4th, 2009 | 11:55 am | #9
Socialism and Capitalism are like evil step-sisters. Sure, you can argue about which is the lesser of two evils, but at the end of the day, they’re still both evil, because they idolize (in one way or another) mammon.
People love to say that capitalism is legalized greed, and there is some validity to that accusation, but it applies to Socialism, as well. The only difference is that in Socialism, the greed is at the bottom.
“…The nations seek after these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. Rather, seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”
– Matt 6:32-33
November 4th, 2009 | 4:41 pm | #10
It depends on which part of Marx you’re talking about. You’re focusing on the parts of his work that have to do with his positive program. He spends quite a bit of time simply diagnosing the problems in the work that he thinks his positive program will remedy. I wouldn’t be prepared to endorse everything he says in that body of work, but a lot of it is simply recognizing forces at work in society that perpetuate negative patterns, and a good deal of that was based on genuine argument. And some of it is in fact quite real; he just diagnoses it as based on a reductionistic account of capitalism causing everything bad in the world, when we in fact have a better explanation — original sin.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact