21/12: Why I am not a Socialist
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
I am easing my way into Farmer's challenge to articulate a coherent political philosophy by first stating what I am not and why. Earlier I wrote Why I am not a Libertarian.
My Christianity makes Socialism attractive to me. In the Old Testament one sees that the people of Israel were to have a strong sense of community, that greedy individuals who took advantage of others were condemned, and that there were regulations on economic life (e.g. no charging interest to a fellow Israelite, no harvesting the corners of the field and allowing the poor (landless) access to those corners and to glean from the whole field. In the New Testament those who heard Christ's teaching thought that communal living was the natural expression thereof--the first church in Jerusalem practiced community of goods at least to an extent. Early capitalism was opposed to numerous practices of the Church, and even the Puritans were critics of capitalism at least in its laissez-faire form. And, Christian politicians, especially in Europe, have tended toward Socialism.
So, why am I not a Socialist? Human sin. Sin makes us naturally self-centered and self-seeking. Even Christians struggle with sin. Socialism may be a great theory if everyone behaved in an altruistic manner. But, the reality is that relatively few will work for the good of all. We are better motivated by self-interest. And, many will take advantage of a socialist system by not pulling their own weight, allowing others to do their share of production. Socialism as a social/governmental system makes shipwreck on the reef of human sin.
Socialism as practiced in Europe also has tended create an unhealthy dependency upon the state government, to the detriment of individuals, families, and non-governmental organizations.
My Christianity makes Socialism attractive to me. In the Old Testament one sees that the people of Israel were to have a strong sense of community, that greedy individuals who took advantage of others were condemned, and that there were regulations on economic life (e.g. no charging interest to a fellow Israelite, no harvesting the corners of the field and allowing the poor (landless) access to those corners and to glean from the whole field. In the New Testament those who heard Christ's teaching thought that communal living was the natural expression thereof--the first church in Jerusalem practiced community of goods at least to an extent. Early capitalism was opposed to numerous practices of the Church, and even the Puritans were critics of capitalism at least in its laissez-faire form. And, Christian politicians, especially in Europe, have tended toward Socialism.
So, why am I not a Socialist? Human sin. Sin makes us naturally self-centered and self-seeking. Even Christians struggle with sin. Socialism may be a great theory if everyone behaved in an altruistic manner. But, the reality is that relatively few will work for the good of all. We are better motivated by self-interest. And, many will take advantage of a socialist system by not pulling their own weight, allowing others to do their share of production. Socialism as a social/governmental system makes shipwreck on the reef of human sin.
Socialism as practiced in Europe also has tended create an unhealthy dependency upon the state government, to the detriment of individuals, families, and non-governmental organizations.
phortognome wrote:
My comments are perhaps more pertinnet to 14/12: The Nature of War
But also relate to this post in terms of what you have earlier referred to as "the Nanny State"
Night before last we were watching 'Dr. Who' I am not good at remembering episode names or the names of the other characters so bear with me:
The Dr. and his young attractive British travelling companion are in London near 10 Downing some time near the present. It is a year or so after this companion had left with the Dr in the TARDIS. They have run ins with her boyfriend (who is upset with her leaving and with his having been a police suspect in her disappearance. They also meet with the companion's mother who is quite uset with and supicious of the Dr for disturbing the status quo. Here status quo it seems is a series of non-committal 'relationships and being comfortable depending on the state welfare system to take care of her. Apparently these two issues are a source of contention between mother and daughter. The daughter favors individual responsibility, and committment to orthers as well as to ideals and values and is committted to accept risks of these committments (what else to expect of a travelling companion of the Dr?)
The apparent story line, a 'family' of aliens has been killing off parliment and cabinent and assuming identiy from PM on down. You learn that ther goal is to instigate a nuclear conflagration that turns the Eart to radioactive slag to be sold to inter-stellar salvage yards looking for cheap sources of radioactive material.
The interpersonal plot. The Dr and his companion are sealed in secure room at 10 downing, the aliens are elswher in building convincing UN to unleash nuclear attack. To avert this the Dr has to arrange for a convential missile atack on 10 Downing to destroy aliens. To do so he has to put himself and his companion at risk of life and limb. The companion's Mother and former boyfriend are in a position to thwart this plan. The Mother struggles between recognition that the alien's threat is eminent and her wish to ignore this reality in hopes that she can blindly continue life as before, without risk, responisbility or committment.
I do not know when this episode was written but the Mother seems an insightful representatio of 'everyman' in Western Europe and much of US.