Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The Greatest Socialist of All Time

I was very happy to see the President return to the "Hope" and "Change" mantra that earned him the White House last night. Regardless of your opinion of the man and the direction he is taking our country, we all benefit when the tone is a positive one. This change of approach from words like "catastrophe" to "sputtering along" when referring to our present economy is a step in the right direction, sure to help stabilize markets and start some positive energy.
I don't know where this all takes us in the future, I fear a return to oppressive interest rates and the tax of runaway inflation due to our manipulation of the money supply, which I am not convinced is needed. I am not an economist, just a concerned citizen that sees a course of huge spending increases causing pain for future generations that could be avoided. The natural business cycle may prove to be the most powerful tool toward turning the economy around, and I am sure plenty of people will be lining up to take credit for it in a few years. I admit there are different points of view on the subject that can, and should, be argued in civil discussions, but I don't think anyone would refute the idea that we are headed for a period of increased government growth. Whether that growth proves to be a good thing or a bad thing is open to debate, and how the future will be told.
One area I am concerned about is the creep toward socialism. I am not sure exactly what the definition of a socialist nation is, I believe an economist would tell you when spending on social programs reaches about half of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) then you are classed as a socialist nation. The US is headed toward 40%. What that means in reality is a nation where the people prefer their government to be in control of taking care of its citizens. The care of individuals will be more in the hands of government run programs than in the hands of family, friends and community than ever before, but what does that really mean and why should we worry?
From my perspective, in simple terms, that means a government that wants to replace God as our caretaker. Providing for every need is the intent, so that we are all happy, productive and settled contributors for the common good. There are a few elements missing from this idea, however, first and foremost is that even if our physical needs are met we will all still hunger for something more. Over 90% of Americans profess a faith in God, whatever the religion doesn't matter to make this point, we mostly believe there is something else out there that is more than we can comprehend. Our understanding of this fact, and how we react to it, is just as important (I would argue more so) as our physical care and well being. We need to be allowed to wrestle with out current condition, struggling together to find our way out and learning about our inner selves at the same time.
The best care for any individual is to consider ALL of their needs, just not the physical ones. Government can swallow our corporate financial resources to provide for some important items, but in reality we are still left wanting more, and more, until the nation is bankrupted (see previous post on stages of democracy). The greatest socialist of all time was none other than Jesus Christ, he wept, healed, provided for and loved so much that he is regarded as one of the most important figures of our time. He truly understood people's needs, not just the physical ones, but the spiritual ones, and put himself in a position of relationship where those needs could be called out and filled. We would do well to learn a lesson from that example, we cannot provide for needs without relationship. Allowing people to fill out a form, stand in a line or Google up a webpage to collect some of our national resources for themselves is not providing, it is creating dependence. We are giving fish instead of teaching to fish, replacing relationship with bureaucracy, administering medicine for our bodies while our souls are withering. 
Jesus Christ put modern socialists to shame. Not only did he provide food, health and well being, he provided relationship that went even further to heal the complete needs of the people. And he did it with no money. Now, I can't walk on water, or expect to fix problems without financial resources, but what I am able to do is help people by building relationships first and having faith toward positive resolution. Who better to understand financial issues than our families, communities and friends who are living with the same concerns? What better situation to push people together and help each other solve problems, instead of pulling them apart to rely on the ease of the government dole that requires no personal commitment? Modern socialists would do well to consider their own imposed references to separation of church and state. True need is a matter for the church, which does not require government to succeed, but partial need is a matter for the state, which must have a moral and upright society for the republic to function. Washington stated this reality in his farewell address, yet we are still trying to prove him wrong.
So while we are throwing money at a problem that might reach part of the physical need that is out there and protect us from struggling together, it still falls to those of us that respect personal responsibility to seek out and help those in need. It falls to us to build relationships, understand the problem, and attempt to help the best that we can, albeit with fewer resources since more and more will be going to DC to pay for a partial solution. It is easy to complain, but our responsibility remains, a responsibility not to our nation and its programs but to the citizens that make it up. The gift of Christ is part of that responsibility for those that believe Him as the only path to the Father, and if you want to give someone real "Hope" then that is the best path you can take.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well said Cole.
As an economist, I can say that missing and essential to the perfection of every socialist and communist system are two critical factors.
1) Omniscience
2) Agape
Without, the redistribution of wealth is at best naïve and at worst biased toward some ulterior motive, like buying favor from voter or indulging cronies.
As an agent of God’s Church, I am still constrained by a lack of omniscience but I am called to love as Christ loves. While the best I have to give is fostering relationship and reconciliation with God, tangible expressions of love and concern are most often a catalyst for the spiritual and eternal. When we, the Church, surrender the role of social welfare to the government we are robbing God by forfeiting an opportunity to be an expression of His love. That said, taking that blessing all for ourselves is no less perverted than surrender. My final comment: As a Christian, the commanded to love is not conditional on a favorable economic system, a low tax rate or my personal wealth. Fighting against a socialist agenda is a worthy cause but win or lose, the command stands.

Pat

Christopher Hill said...

The problem with this is that Socialism is not "When the government takes care of its citizens" but rather when the people take control of the government (And the government takes over the means of production) making "Social programs" as they are now a thing of the past and largely unneeded as production would be in the hands of the workers (And so they would no longer need many of the same Social Programs that are necessary under the Capitalist system)
So what would a Socialist Society look like?

"Although no one can provide a blueprint in advance of what such a society would look like, we can say that this form of social ownership and democracy would mean the beginning of the end of the class division of society, and indeed of the social division of labor. The working class having taken power will proceed to radically transform the way the economy and society is run. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. This refers not to some formal democracy on paper - more accurately bourgeois democracy where you are allowed to vote every few years for a committee (parliament) who then run things in the interests of capitalism - but a democracy where we all play a full and active part not just in voting but in actually running our communities, our workplaces, and our society. Once the modern economy, industry, science, and technology, is in the hands of all members of society, we will be able to achieve full employment and shorter working hours - giving us the time as well as the resources we need to really begin to realize our talents. We could see the economy forge ahead at 10 or even 20% a year! This would be entirely possible once we have done away with the anarchy of private ownership and the profit motive. Such growth could double the wealth of society in five years!

The reduction of the working day, and an increase in the productivity of society are the prerequisites for the disappearance of the class division of society, and for the birth of socialism. It would be, as Marx put it, a society where everyone contributes according to their abilities and receives according to their needs. Such a society is no utopia but the only alternative to a slow and painful descent into barbarism. But it will not come about automatically even in a million years. Only a socialist revolution, that is, the conscious movement of the working class to take control over their own lives, can effect this change. This requires the building in advance of a trained and educated leadership that can ensure its success. For the last hundred years, at least since World War I, the capitalist system has ceased to play an historically progressive role. It stands like a roadblock in the path of human progress. We cannot wait for its instability to drive us back into the dark ages. There will be many opportunities for us in the coming years. But the success of socialism is not inevitable, it can only be guaranteed in advance by the extent to which we begin preparing for it today."