The Socialist Christian
Hello! I'm new here, having just joined. Steve Rockwell tells me my book "The Socialist Christian" has been chosen as book of the month, and he asked me to say something about it. Here's a kind of introduction or summary:
Like many people here (I assume), I have been disturbed for years by the positions on current social and political issues that are often presented as Christian. My problem is not so much what such people often say--I might agree with several of their positions--as with what they DON'T say: for me, their concern with personal/sexual morality may be right, but should not be allowed to monopolize the Christian agenda to the exclusion of all other matters. Too often, the idea of responsibility for others falls through the cracks, accidentally or deliberately, leaving the way open for a kind of robber baron capitalism that neglects those in need. As I bluntly put it to a friend, making the issue of gay marriage your most important concern is a luxury for people who know where their next meal is coming from. My personal feeling is that our primary duty as Christians is to care for others, which entails not simply making vague statements of brotherly love but caring enough to DO something. As Christians, we should make sure that everyone has enough to eat, a decent place to live, access to medical care, education, employment; in short, everything necessary to lead a meaningful life. I realize that emphasizing these concerns will open me to accusations of materialism from certain quarters, but I believe the emphasis is entirely justified in scripture: "If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,' but you do not give the necessities of the body, what good is it?" (James 2: 15-16). Furthermore, most people who object to making such concerns central are precisely those who already have all these things, and don't need to worry about them; let those people spend a week homeless, and I think their attitude about the importance of material wellbeing will change radically.
Most Christians accept this idea, as do many people of other faiths or no faith. The controversy comes in when I suggest that the government should take responsibility for providing all these things, and that we as Christians should take responsibility for making sure it does. Many people still subscribe to the Ronald Reagan point of view that such social services should indeed be provided, but the responsibility for them left to private charities. I respectfully disagree: private charities are overwhelmed, and lack the resources of the government. Does anyone really believe that all of us will voluntarily donate out of a sense of charity every cent that the IRS forces us to pay? I don't even trust myself to do that, and don't think we can trust our society to do so; if most people were that saintly, we would have no crime and no need for laws in the first place. Furthermore, that attitude reduces the concept of charity toward others to something optional, extra, above and beyond the call of duty. I believe the fundamental message of Christ is that care for others is an OBLIGATION, which we have no more right to accept or refuse than we do to accept or refuse the commandments not to kill or steal. After all, when Jesus told the apostles to love one another, he said he was giving them a new COMMANDMENT, not a suggestion for them to take or leave as they pleased.
The crux of the issue is what the government has a right to require of us and what should be left to individual choice. Despite what some people may say, no one really believes that everything should be a matter of choice: that would mean a state with no laws in which anyone can steal, rape, and murder with no consequences to fear. My personal belief is that the government has the right--and the duty-- to intervene and force us to do particular things when clear and demonstrable harm will result from our action--or our inaction; it has no such right when the results are open to individual interpretation and conscience. In other words, the government has no right to tell us what church to attend, since there is no objective way of proving the rightness or wrongness of any faith; it does have the right to tell us we can't leave people to starve to death, since that is objectively harmful under every moral code the world has ever known.
This is not violating the separation of church and state, which I support; it is simply the logical extension of the government's universally accepted authority to prevent crime. It is not infringing on our rights: on the contrary, allowing others to wallow in poverty while the resources to lift them out of it are available is an infringement of THEIR right to a decent existence.
With this as my fundamental philosophy, I look at many of the controversial issues of current debate: abortion, gun control, foreign policy, justified and unjustified war, education, the environment. On many of them, I don't really map out a specific program; I simply insist on the need to deal with them as a duty of all Christians. If private means are doing so, I see no need to transfer control to the government; where private means are failing to do so, we must do something, whether by the public or the private sector, to alleviate the situation. But fundamentally, I argue that the most effective way--perhaps the ONLY effective way--to guarantee that all necessary goods and services are available to everyone is for the government to guarantee them. To put it bluntly, all children should be guaranteed enough to eat every day, not left to depend on how much a soup kitchen received in donations this month. In other countries, such programs already exist; in fact, the United States lags far beyond every other industrialized country in providing health care, education, etc., to its citizens. We do have some such programs, of course: social security, Medicare, Head Start, and so on, which means that even if many Americans dread the word socialism, they accept some of its premises. I advocate extending the range of socialist intervention, not to the extent of killing off individual initiative, as was done in the Soviet bloc--my first chapter is called "Socialism, not Communism"--but in the way that many European countries (and Canada) have done, so that we all can get ahead by working but no one is left too far behind.
Is all of this old ideas? Maybe so. I claim little originality; I simply wanted to make a case that needs to be made. I look forward to hearing what you think of it.
-Kristof
The Disease that We are Trying to Cure
I welcome Kristof's contribution to the list and plan to get the book soon. Without diving into terminology wars about "capitalism" and "socialism", I'd like to respond to and expand on the social insights in Kristof's postings. First a few widely admitted points about the current economic system. It is based on the private ownership of the means of production. It sounds like Kristof would defend this right, but would add some government-based protections for the vast majority who are not owners. Yet in such an economic system, the interests of owners and workers are inherently opposed. The owners tend to profit more and get higher stock prices for their companies if 1) workers get less pay; 2) workers get fewer benefits; 3) workers work more intensely with less time off; and 4) workers are organizationally weak. Viewed purely economically, I doubt many would contest these facts. Such an economic system works directly against the virtue of solidarity, one of the primary Christian values. In other words, as Kristof so forcefully maintains, our primary duty as Christians is to care for others, which implies solidarity, shared interests, common aspirations toward justice and equality. Yet this economic system not only works against solidarity, but makes those who obey their conscience less competitive.
Government programs, as Bill implies, ameliorate the worst effects of the system without challenging its basic dynamic. That being the case, it will always tend to revert to its pure form which is laissez-faire capitalism, as it has since 1980. As a Christian who believes that Jesus came to remake both heaven and earth, I wonder if we believers of today might not be capable of the same imaginative restructuring as the early Apostles, though in a manner appropriate to our time. Which is to say a way of creating a mutually beneficial economy which produces care and empathy between players rather than a zero sum game. Christians have been taught that this economy is simply fallen human nature writ large, but is that really the case? And should we not even attempt to redeem it?
Boyd's got it right
Boyd has gone right to the point of the terminological discussion (please, not "wars", not here) about capitalism and socialism. And he offers a neat capsule description of the facts of economic life that are the stuff of what is accurately described as "the class war". Although for quite some time it's been a quiet war, it still goes on and on. It's quiet because most of the target population has been pacified by a combination of techniques: shock & awe, prolonged siege, psyops and special forces (legal firms specializing in union suppression techniques), search & destroy, seize & hold, and repeated surges. So to speak. (I can give examples that illustrate each of those buzzwords, if anyone wants me to.)
Example of the ongoing class war: after the newspaper published the article about my neighborhood, the paper sponsored a little ice-cream social for us in the afternoon, with the editor, the reporter, photographer, and some other staff people present. They gave out Times Union t-shirts. I joked with the reporter that the next time there was a picket or a strike, I'd wear the t-shirt to the picket line (which I had joined before in the last bitter contract dispute three years ago, carrying a Labor-Religion Coalition sign). He replied that there wouldn't be a strike: "people are too afraid that they'd lose their jobs." What I didn't learn until a couple of days later was that a contract renewal struggle has been going on for a while, with management (part of the Hearst privately held media conglomerate) making a series of proposals (like outsourcing to independent contractors, unfettered use of non-union temps, and at-will pay cuts regardless of contract terms) that would make the union powerless and irrelevant. Union activists complain that management must think they're stupid. My comment to them on their blog was that they don't think you're stupid, they're sure you're scared.
Boyd and others of us wonder about the possibility of economic arrangements other than capitalism. Something based on care and empathy. Well, cooperation is as much a part of human nature as competition -- probably more fundamentally so. We all need to "make a living" -- that provides incentive enough. Look at the "core economy" that I mentioned below. It's huge, and it operates without money. Who requires a profit motive to do all the work that's involved in family life, in volunteer community organizations and religious congregations?
Even when it comes to making a living, is the profit motive the dominant consideration for most people? At least for those of us who had real options, what were we looking for when we chose our occupations? Maximum income or something that was intrinsically rewarding to us while allowing us to make a living? I think the profit motive is over-rated.
Bill
definition of socialism
Your comments are interesting, and I enjoy reading them. Are you reading the book, or just going by what I write here? Either way, it's good to correspond with you.
I think we have a difference of opinion over what the term socialism means. I don't see it as radically opposed to capitalism; in fact, I argue in the book (p. 40) that socialism, as I conceive it, is a middle ground between the extremes of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism on one side and communism on the other. At the risk of being accused of trying to stack the deck unfairly in my own favor, I would suggest that my conception of socialism is a positive one, defining it by what it does--provide a decent existence for everyone--instead of a negative one that defines it by what it does not allow--profit. For what it's worth, I think most socialist countries and governments would agree with me--but maybe they don't really count as socialist from your point of view.
In countries like Norway, Sweden, France, people can still buy and sell stock, make money off investments, etc., and I would argue that doesn't keep them from being socialist. Britain's Labor governments have never tried to shut down the FTSE, and Francois Mitterrand, a socialist who spoke of a desire to "break with capitalism," didn't shut down the CAC Quarante. For them, and for me, the issue is simply to what extent such profit-generating operations are regulated--and taxed. I would suggest that the Scandinavian countries have done a good job harnessing them to provide social benefits for all of society.
All of that being said, if you can tell me how to eliminate that and replace it with something better, I'm all ears. As I said earlier, I don't think I know what a post-capitalist economy would be, but I'm willing to learn.
Actually, I had thought the challenge to my use of the term socialist would come from another quarter, in response to my discussion of abortion, gun control, and such issues. Someone may say: I agree (or disagree) with your conclusions, but what do they have to do with socialism? There I admit I'm stretching the definition to include what might be called social responsibility: our Christian duties to our brothers and sisters consist not only of providing them with food, housing, medical care, etc., but also with making sure they don't get shot to death. Policy, not money and spending, are central to the latter, and maybe I should have called my book something like "The Socially Active Christian." But most of what I advocate will indeed involve spending, so I think the term "socialist Christian" is justified. It's also where the controversy lies with most people: the NRA will scream about their guns, but most people will probably support most of what I say, until it threatens to cost them money, at which point everything changes. A certain category of them invariably hit the ceiling at the mention of tax incrases--see my chapter 10--so I don't think I'm provoking them unnecessarily by calling my ideas socialist: I could call my proposals anything I like, and they would still be considered poison by those people. Perhaps they'll balance things out with your criticism, finding me TOO socialist, and call me a communist. Then you and I will at least agree to disagree with them on that point.
re: definition of socialism
I meant to post this before the month ended, but didn't get around to editing it, with particular reference to shortening it. But I don't have time to go back through it, so here's the uncut version, for whatever it might be worth.
-----------
I hate to admit it, Kristof, but I'm going by what you've written here. (That's not a nice thing to say to an author, I know. I'm such a cheapskate. And to make it worse, I got the title wrong. I was so fixed on the 'socialist' question that I wrote "Christian Socialism" instead of "The Socialist Christian". Oof. I wouldn't want to demote "Christian" from subject to a mere modifier.)
However, I will go out on a dogmatic limb and say that your definition of 'socialism' is outside the range of generally recognized meanings. Some form of public ownership is an intrinsic element of the socialist idea. Socialisms are, indeed, radically opposed to capitalism, though some who use the label allow for a mixed public/private economy. The European countries that you mentioned have moved away from Socialism with a capital S and are usually described as social democracies -- the kind of welfare state that combines markets with government intervention in markets, and privately owned enterprises with extensive government services. That's what I would call "trammeled capitalism" (as opposed to the untrammeled sort), not socialism.
Here's the online version of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary's definition of socialism:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
#3 might, by a considerable stretch, cover the kind of welfare state programs that you advocate and thus justify your calling them socialist. But seeing the welfare state as a transitional stage in the progress toward communism, or as an imperfect implementation of a desirable set of collectivist principles, is clearly not in line with what you've been saying.
I looked at Wikipedia to see what might pass as an online consensus, and found the opening paragraph to be similar to the Random House definition: "Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services."
The Wikipedia article went on to describe varieties of socialisms: "This control may be exercised on behalf of the state, through a market, or through popular collectives such as workers' councils and cooperatives. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, cooperative, or worker ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments."
The range of current socialist parties' agendas includes a milder "selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies". But even 'market socialisms' of various kinds involve a substantial, usually major, non-private sector.
A case in point: the Democratic Socialists of America's current agenda is pretty much generic "progressive". They aren't pushing for nationalizing anything. Instead, they're looking for common themes as a basis for a broad progressive movement for economic justice. Within our current market system, they'd like to see genuinely progressive taxation and cuts in military spending, universal social insurance programs, stronger unions for achieving labor-market equity, and global institutions that advance labor rights, human rights, and the environment.
But in the long run, they want "social ownership", but with, in part, a market economy for consumer goods. Their FAQs start with the question "Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?" Their answer is "No":
"Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises
managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic Socialists favor as much decentralization as possible.
While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state
ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
"Democratic Socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While
we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market
mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods."
What's clear in this decentralized version of socialism is that it has no place at all for capitalist enterprises In Western Europe, however, socialism has gradually become "social democracy", a moving away from socialism toward the kind of policies that you advocate, or to a "Third Way" that also includes US non-socialist traditions like Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council as well as the UK's Tony Blairified Labour Party. Many on the left would consider the Clintons and the DLC, despite liberal social policies, to be equivalent to Europe's center-right when it comes to economic institutions and policies.
Of course, all of this is subject to terminological disputes, nit-picking over definitions, fine distinctions among related terms like social democracy and democratic socialism, and differences about how to classify the various political parties that still use the word "socialism" or "socialist" in their names.
Bill
re:re:definition of socialism
Thanks Bill for this definition of socialism. It gives me a better understanding of where you're coming from. And when you write, "Many on the left would consider the Clintons and the DLC, despite liberal social policies, to be equivalent to Europe's center-right when it comes to economic institutions and policies", it gives me a better understanding of why you think Obama is center right rather than center left.
What form of socialism would you advocate instead of capitalism? You wrote, "Some form of public ownership is an intrinsic element of the socialist idea. Socialisms are, indeed, radically opposed to capitalism, though some who use the label allow for a mixed public/private economy." Would the post capitalist economies that you've been writing about fall under the Democratic Socialist models of worker cooperatives and publicly owned industries owned by workers and consumer representatives? It seems that the goal of this vision of socialism is to eliminate the hierarchical aspects of our present economy, in the theory that the hierarchy with managers, CEOs creates division between them and workers that causes a lot of the imbalances. Would this be the sort of economy that you and Bo are looking for that eliminates the selfishness and competitiveness of capitalism and focuses more on cooperation and community altruism?
In focusing on a decentralized socialism, it also seems that this vision of socialism is trying to avoid the pitfalls of a more centralized socialism and its tendency towards corruption and authoritarian rule.
From what I'm reading, it sounds good on paper. I guess because of the James Madison influence, I'm just wondering where some checks and balances are. Will the workers act as their own check and balance against corruption?
Angelo
Real Socialism
I'd like to respond to both Angelo and to Kristof using this excellent query as a starting point: "It seems that the goal of this vision of socialism is to eliminate the hierarchical aspects of our present economy, in the theory that the hierarchy with managers, CEOs creates division between them and workers that causes a lot of the imbalances." First, is it a "theory" that this hierarchy creates division? It appears to me that this hierarchy is a division of interests, whatever moral attribute you wish to make for it. It seems that this is an objective economic fact, not a "theory". What I mean is this: Owners of corporations, with their managers, make all the decisions regarding the organization of work, tools, the composition and number of products, procedures, investments, and collective consumption while the workers basically obey and endure the results, often catastrophically. One can't have solidarity with those owners while being deprived of the power to share those decisions. The power to share in those decisions is part of human dignity because it is one's labor that helps build that enterprise. The obstacle to solidarity is hierarchical decision making which is implicit in capitalist ownership relations and the corporate division of labor. What I'm attempting to describe here is a fact that I've observed in the workplaces where I have worked, not a theory about hierarchy.
Socialism Flashbacks
My adopted father was an immigrant who was always looking over one shoulder for the Communists to come and take him away, looking over the other shoulder for the Nazis to come and get him, and he had no other shoulders to look over for some of Franco's Fascists to come and get him. The knock on the door and the police coming to drag him away were ever present in his mind. He was a Socialist and a lover of freedom and democracy who hated Communism and Fascism. The idea of being a Socialist and hating Communism is totally inconceivable to the average American political mind.
We were in Detroit and there were several local Socialist movements. He went to the meetings of the one that was anti-Soviet. I can't remember if it was the Socialist Workers Party or The Socialist Labor Party. The FBI was taking names though and some of the immigrants going to these meetings were being deported, denied citizenship, and having their resident alien cards revoked. This was the late fifties and early sixties. He got scared, and like Zinn he realized this country wasn't all that free, stopped going to meetings, and never made any political noise after that.
Part of my growing up experience was arguing with the old man about the differences between Socialism and Communism, Trotsky, Marx and Lenin, and then later Castro. He liked Trotsky, if I remember correctly, but not the others. So now I am having flashbacks.LOL
Oops!
Sorry, I didn't mean to post that three times. Sometimes my computer stutters, or pretends not to send a message when it really did. I hope you'll find my book worth reading more than once, but I'm sure one time was enough for my last message.
Lemon socialism?
Kristof,
I think what you've written here is fine, as far as it goes.
The Right, despite its acceptance of compulsion in other areas, is worried about government forcing us to carry out our charitable duties. But, at least theoretically, it's "our" government and is supposed to be responsive to our values and wishes, so long as we stay within constitutional limits. I think you do a good job of showing how the compulsion issue and the church and state issue are really red herrings.
My criticism is that I'm not sure from what you've written here that you're really making a case for Socialism, per se. It sounds to me like a version of "Lemon Socialism". Whereas the classic form of lemon socialism is the bailing out, subsidizing, or taking over of failed capitalist enterprises, in this case the government's assumption of the responsibility for Welfare serves as a form of damage control for what I consider to be an irresponsible and destructive corporate system. That's what the New Deal did and that's what the European welfare states do, too.
And that's good. But is that all there is? Is it good enough? Is it Christian enough?
What are your thoughts on the possibilities for "post-capitalist" economics and society?
Bill
What (in italics) socialism?
It's good to hear your comments based on what I wrote here. I only hope you'll be as favorably disposed toward the book once you've actually read it.
I don't think I know what a post-capitalist economy or society would be. I insist on the need for the profit motive, without which none of us, myself included, would do what needs to be done; socialism, properly constituted, respects such motivation, whereas communism tries to abolish it, and inevitably fails. My quarrel is not with the idea of people wanting to be paid for the work they do--I expect to be paid for mine--or trying to get things on the cheap--most of the books I'm constantly buying are at knockdown prices. I only dispute the excesses of these tendencies, excesses we see all around us today.
So how do you tell the difference between what's legitimate and what's excessive? I would suggest doing it by looking at the results. The problem with Walmart is not that it made the Walton family into billionaires; the problem is what it did to millions of other people in the process. Righting those wrongs, of course, would cut into the owners' profit margin, which is why they resist it so strenuously; but in plenty of other places in the world, people consider themselves rich on a lousy million dollars a year, which leaves plenty to provide for health care, public safety, education, etc., whether directly by the profit-making institutions or indirectly by taxes those institutions pay to support state services. It seems to me that trying to go beyond that always ends up killing the goose that lays the golden egg, making the whole enterprise so inefficient it can't support anything for anyone, as the Soviet system so graphically showed. Does that make me sound suspiciously like the Sam Walton types in their self-justifications? I say in the preface to the book that I take ideas from both ends of the political spectrum and refuse to follow anyone's party line, which is a sure way to please no one and get everyone to come down on you, but so be it.
For me, taking care of others is a fundamental Christian duty; how it's done, however, is open to debate. Let me switch sides again and quote Deng Xiaoping saying "Who cares what color the cat is, as long as it catches mice?" Caring for everyone is an ethical question; how best to do it is a practical question. It becomes an ethical issue, however, when the current way of doing it is clearly failing and people refuse to try another that could work better--especially when that refusal is based not on doubts about the effectiveness of the proposed new approach but simply on how much it might cost those who already have adequate services to provide them to those who don't. Too often, "That won't work" is a smokescreen used to hide "That would force me to shorten my vacation."
If, however, you or anyone else can suggest a way to get beyond capitalism in a way that doesn't stifle initiative, I'm very interested in hearing about it.
Christian Economic Principles
One of the reasons this discussion is so interesting to me is that it shows how far this conversation among committed Christians has drifted from essential Christian principles. I'm with Bill on Christian social principles and I admit that Catholic social teaching forms the starting point of my thinking. As significant as economic results and historical analysis might be, as Christians, I believe we have deeper commitments that economic practice must reflect. The perhaps unexamined assumption behind much of this discussion is that the primary purpose of an economic system is to produce an abundance of consumer goods. But what should the goal of an economic system be if we are to fulfill Christ's call to solidarity?
Here is a passage from Rerum Novarum (Catholic social encyclical by Pope Leo XIII) which is directly relevant to Kristof's Walmart example: "Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice." What is this "dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man"? It is the Christian principle found in hundreds of Biblical passages, but which might be summarized in this passage, "Do not rob the poor because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause and despoil of life those who despoil them." (Prov. 22: 22 - 23). The implication of the encyclical passage is that it is the act whereby the employer keeps for himself a disproportionate share of the income of the business that is the root of the injustice. The further implication is that these workers are being permanently robbed with the support and approval of the prevailing legal system, of what is their due by natural right.
The Biblical principle on which this is based is that to give alms to the poor is to do justice. Note that this does not mean that charity is an extra good deed above and beyond what is necessary for salvation, but that charity is what is owed to the poor. A further implication is that justice does not simply mean paying just wages and providing benefits, the minimal definition of economic humanity, but that it must include an essential ingredient of generosity, the sharing of superfluous goods. Billionaires are not morally neutral according to Biblical teachings.
The Fathers of the Church were particularly passionate about this teaching. Jerome comments in this way about Luke 16:9 (And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings.): "And he very rightly said, "money of injustice", for all riches come from injustice. Unless one person has lost, another cannot find. Therefore I believe that the popular proverb is very true: 'The rich person is either an unjust person or the heir of one.'" Jerome: Carta 120 (PL 22, col 984). Many other such passages could be cited. For instance, Augustine describes the common destiny of goods as follows: "God willed that this earth should be the common possession of all and he offered its fruits to all. But avarice distributed the rights of possession." Augustine, De Trinitate, PL 42, col. 1046.
In order to confirm that this is not merely a superceded teaching, here is what the most current version of the Catholic Catechism says, "The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise." Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2403.
I strongly agree with Kristof's points in this posting, but I think that traditional Christian teaching contains a profound economic analysis which argues that superfluous economic goods are a direct offense against the poor and a fundamental violation of God's justice. If you would like to see these principles applied to current issues of peace and justice, you might like to take a look at the Nonviolent Jesus blog (http://nonviolentjesus.blogspot.com).
charity
I thank everyone who's participating in the discussion here. It's a real breath of fresh air to have a discussion with people who (a) have intelligent thoughts and (b) can exchange differing views without animosity.
Collinsbo, have you read my book? The central point of what you said is in fact my central point: caring for others is a duty, an obligation, not something above and beyond the call of duty for those who choose to do it. The commandment to love others, and the actions needed to make that real, are no more open to our individual choice than the commandments not to kill or commit adultery (see pp. 44-45). My third chapter is called "Charity (in italics), not Charity (no italics)," and argues that we have to provide for everyone's needs: food, housing, education, health care, etc.; that is the biblical meaning of the Greek term charis, not our modern volunteer activity concept. Moving from one to the other is the key to progress. It's like the old TV spots about fair housing: "It's not just a good idea. It's the law." Our central problem, from my point of view, is that it is NOT the law--not yet. As Christians, we have a duty to change the law so that it is. This is the point, like Orwell's 2 + 2 = 4, from which everything else follows, if it is itself admitted.
As for the different definitions of socialism, the dictionary definitions do indeed seem to refer to something else. Socialism as practiced in European countries, however, is usually similar to what I'm proposing, or a crossbreed of it and public ownership. My feeling is that the provision of services should be publicly funded and guaranteed by law so that no one is left out; how best to achieve it, however, is open to debate. It's not that I reject outright public ownership, I just wonder if it's necessary, and if it's the most efficient way of doing things. For me, that is a question of practicality. Once we all agree on the goal--and it sounds like everyone here does--we can discuss the best way of getting there.
Charity
I have ordered your book from Amazon and am anxiously waiting its arrival. I'm happy to find someone who seems to have a similar idea of what the Gospel means for economics and politics. As to your idea of "Charity (in italics), not Charity (no italics), I've tried to deepen my brief presentation of this idea a bit in my latest blog entry titled "What is the Basis of Christian Economics?" Here I delve in the prophets and the teachings of the Fathers and St. Thomas Aquinas to understand exactly why justice requires generosity and sharing superfluous goods with the poor. More generally, I see these Biblical principles as the basis for an economy of sharing. As St. Thomas said, "For the well-being of the individual two things are necessary: the first and most essential is to act virtuously (it is through virtue, in fact, that we live a good life); the other, and secondary, requirements is rather a means, and lies in a sufficiency of material goods, such as are necessary to virtuous action." St. Thomas Aquinas, De Regimine Principum, chap. XV.
Notice how St. Thomas makes virtue the essential condition for well-being, but follows it immediately with the material basis for virtue as the secondary critical element. The goal of our life as Christians is communion with God, but this communion requires that we provide a material basis for the life of virtue that all must cultivate. The implication, it seems to me, is that in providing this material basis we must create an economics of solidarity, one that rewards compassion and shared interests and punishes destructive competition.
As Christians, I agree we have the duty to change unjust laws, but I also believe that we have an equal duty to understand the nature of the economic system that produces these injustices. In the words of Stephen Mott, "If every time the Good Samaritan went down that road from Jerusalem to Jericho he found people wounded and did nothing about the bandits, would his love be perfect? Spontaneous, simple love, following the dictates of its own concern for persons in need, grows into a concern for the formal structure of society." Mott, Biblical Ethics and Social Change.
Charity vs. Socialism
The challenge that you face is the very different connotation of those two words...
Charity vs. Socialism
These words are very different both in meaning and connotation. As Christians, we must begin with charity and compare the duties of charity with what the current economic system pushes us towards with such coercive force. Then we can envision an alternative economic system that pushes in a new direction.
re: socialism?
Not to argue with your ideas, just your label: it strikes me that "Christian Socialism", in this case, is a misnomer.
If you insist on the profit motive as an essential component of any economy, then I think you're talking about some form of capitalism, not some form of socialism.
That's because profit is something other than people just being "paid for the work they do". Being paid for work is a subject that does raise some basic questions - like what are the justifications for unequal pay and what might be the best basis for determining pay differentials.
But profit refers to the financial gains made by business enterprises, whether they're sole proprietorships, various types of partnerships, personal corporations, privately held corporations, corporations with publicly traded stock, or governmentally owned enterprises -- or like Fannie Mae, government-sponsored enterprises.
So if you're saying the economy must be based on a private profit-based incentive rather than just on some kind of wage incentives, let alone any other kind of imaginable incentives, then I think the word "socialism" is inappropriate. The term "social democracy" fits better and covers the welfare state activities that you advocate. And since you indicate that you don't know of any other way than capitalism to promote the requisite initiative for any economy, I can't discern any reason why you would name your book "Christian Socialism".
If you want to convince the Religious Right that a welfare state is okay and that it's in line with our Christian obligations, I think it would work better to drop the word "socialism". That word just plays into their existing negative framing of the issues. I think what would work better is the argument that the welfare state programs in question serve the purposes of both a Christian agenda and a capitalist agenda. It does the latter by pacifying the poor and the workers and thereby tamping down the potential for radical discontent. With 25% unemployment in 1933, and with the example of the Bolshevik revolution as a threatening model, that was surely one of the motivations for the New Deal. Social stability when hard times hit is a continuing concern for capitalism, or for any other system.
So why wave the red flag of socialism when that's not what you're advocating? The Right's already riled up enough. Whenever it's possible, it's kind of nice to sing "Beautiful Dreamer" and woo them "with soft melody".
Bill
Profit vs. Incentive
I think you hit the main issue when you said, "That's because profit is something other than people just being 'paid for the work they do'." The key distinction that I don't see Kristof or others (besides you) making is between profit and economic incentives for work. I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas who explains why holding private property is not contrary the universal destination of goods in this way, "First, because each person takes more trouble to care for something that is his sole responsibility than what is held in common or by many - for in such a case each individual shirks the work and leaves the responsibility to somebody else, which is what happens when too many officials are involved. Second, because human affairs are more efficiently organized if each person has his own responsibility to discharge; there would be chaos if everybody cared for everything. Third, because men live together in greater peace where everyone is content with his task. We do in fact, notice that quarrels often break out amongst men who hold things in common without distinction." St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, 66, 66, 2 ad 1
However, this does not imply that profit is necessary to drive economic activity. What it does argue for is an ethic that places care at the center of economic efforts. Note that he says a person will take more trouble to care for something if it is his sole responsibility, not that only the lure of profit can propel us to produce the goods we need. The clear implication is that there are other motivations than profit to impel us to produce the material basis we need for life and more importantly, virtuous action which leads to union with God.
I agree with Kristof in the sense that without economic (and other) motivations, we will tend to shirk the work, but I vehemently disagree that only profit (or the lure of wealth) can supply such motivation. Have we become incapable of imagining such motivations as working for the communal good or God forbid, a life of dedicated service to others, which in fact motivates a huge amount of volunteer activity even today? With that image in one eye, now imagine what could happen if the economic system rewarded the efforts of solidarity, rather than punishing them as they is the case currently.
By the way, I love the part where Thomas shows what happens "if too many officials are involved", which is part of an effective critique of the Soviet and Chinese models of "socialism".