Search Site For:







 

General News

Send This Article By Email   |  Print Article - Text Only

Christianity, Monopolistic Capitalism and Socialism
by Wayne Sedlak
June 18, 2014


The claim to a distinctly Christian America should not be romanticized. Our country, despite the opposition to socialism found in the Bible, has always cast a wandering eye to the seductive influence of socialistic ideals.

It should help if we understand "Socialism" as "Monopolistic capitalism". It has nothing to do with entrepreneurship and free enterprise, as espoused in Scripture. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the terms invented by others (socialism, capitalism) and invested with meaning by still others than those who invented it.

We've heard it said, "Wealthy business cliques controlling government is hardly confined to capitalism." 

Actually, I disagree, if the assumption is being made that "capitalism" and "socialism" are opposites in the politico-economic spectrum.

Consider:

1) Socialism is Monopolistic capitalism. It has nothing to do with entrepreneurship and free enterprise, as espoused in Scripture. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the terms invented by others (socialism, capitalism) and invested with meaning by still others than those who invented it.

2) My disagreement may be surprising and may be so until it is realized just exactly what "socialism" really is. That non-descript, unemotional, listless, sense-deadening term "Socialism" is one term the vast majority of Americans yawn their way through. It is a low-flying "under the radar" kind of  "hate-thy - neighbor - while- using - thy -neighbor" theology .

However, ALL FORMS of government that control the productive resources of their people through...

  • legislative coercion
  • executive bullying... or ...
  • judicial partiality

... are forms of socialism.

The Bible utterly condemns ALL such forms of control-mongering power grabs.

Where in the Bible?

It's called "Thou shalt not steal." (and many other places in Scripture as well).

 
Capitalism and the Different forms of Socialism

No doubt, they all vary in form, making for separate and full chapters in our government and economic high school texts. But, they all GRAB wealth through COERCIVE governmental agency (as opposed to persuasive means of human relationships).

They all feed upon the productive resources of others. They all foster a governmental elitism, letting us all know "our place - our lesser place" in society. The government is king. We are the "lesser classes". Hence, "class structure" is artificially enacted and foisted upon a society.

Incidentally, the differing forms of socialism (see below) were not concocted because someone loved a theory or two. Their differing systems were structured in ways designed to facilitate FRAUD.

  • Nazism (National Socialism) - took advantage of a broken German pride (inflation, Versailles Treaty and World War I defeat) to cater to "Aryan Supremacy" and the desire for an alleged need for "justice" (revenge) against others...
  • Monarchical socialism (Rex Lex "the king is law"), so dominant throughout history: it simply attempted to legitimize some regal enthronement of a powerful elite (usually moneyed nobility or military "hero")... Note: Here's a great place to raise the issue of Monarchy as established in the Bible. Was such Monarchy "just and upright"?
  • Communism - used the deceit of "class structure" (bourgeoisie vs. proletariat) to foster societal envy as policy ("take from the haves and give to the have-nots).
  • The ENVY MENTALITY is the heart and soul of socialism and it is this: "You've got it. I don't. That's not fair, even if I shouldn't. So, even if getting it from you doesn't help me, seeing you lose it is gratifying to me".  In reality, the very existence of "class" is artificial and betrays the existence and ongoing operation of its (subtle) cause- Socialism - which can only exist IF economic subordination exists. So, Socialism legislatively/judicially/executively impoverishes its peoples by design. 
  • Fascism (Corporation/Contract socialism) erects institutions (like ancient Rome) by which corporate - like entities cooperate with government to police (control) the productive resources of everyone. That was Imperial(istic) Rome of old. It was also their so-called prior "Republic" as well. For those who know something about Roman history: the reason Julius and Augustus Caesar were able to "transform" the Republic into Empire was due to the fact that there was nothing to "transform"... there was only the need to "declare" the end of the one and the formal beginning of the other. NOTHING CHANGED in government other than the fact that one person - Caesar - was in charge of all the offices of government, rights, finance, and military organization.
  • Dictatorship (strong man rule to implement socialism) becomes the overt form of socialism when the blinders come off and everyone knows the ruler or ruling clique is ruthless.
  • Mercantilistic socialism - the colonies exist to serve the mother country, which controls and dictates all resources, markets, trades, prices, and labor
  • Feudalism - this was the 1200 year nursery where all the European socialisms were cultured in mind and economic thought. It was fostered by aristocratic (money) nobilities who took legal structures to keep classes in place, determining their places and positions in society through contractual arrangements. The resultant serfdom was kept in place by legal arrangements agreed to by "other than" serf or serf family.

Americans tend to get taken into the trap of thinking all of these forms of government are different. The Scriptures do NOT go there. Nor does Scripture coddle us with the idea of class (envy) economic structure. Those issues are artificially imposed by malignant theories of social justice that fuel MORE power to governments for rectifying abuse.

Here's the formula people today subscribe to: If there is an injustice, call for government to fix it.  Do understand. Once government gains the power and is legitimized by a majority (or more likely "the illusion of popular support"), it can only be divested of its newfound power by much effort (and strife at times). This is due to the fact that the legitimizing process brought with it the power to "trample" someone or something.

"Power corrupts" is the old adage.

 The Impact of Christianity and "Good vs. Bad"

Another error in thought arises due to the fact that, living in a land where Christianity once was dominant (it no longer is "Christian" in any cultural sense of the term), we were habitually treated to the ideal that, "where two are opposed to each other" in a  matter, if one was a good guy then the other one automatically was the "bad guy".  Christianity actually does not teach that in Scripture, but the tendency to see the absolute struggle of "Good vs. Bad" lends itself to this other mentality.

So, the Nazis were the bad guys (National Socialism) and the FDR-led America (New Deal socialism) was automatically the good guy.

Since communistic Russia and Red China were the bad guys, the "free world" was the good guy. This thinking found us allying ourselves with all sorts of shady governments and world leaders

  • Franco of Spain
  • Diem of Vietnam
  • De Gaulle of France
  • Shah of Iran
  • Batista of Cuba
  • etc.

...and then calling many of them "conservative", "anti-communist".

Then, we get caught up in all sorts of confusions: The Nazis were the bad guys .... since Stalin became Hitler's enemy... the Russians were now the good guys. 

 Another twist...

In America, historically, "conservative" referenced free enterprise, profit motive, Constitutionalism, Christian morality, and the Protestant ethic. 

However, due to the dominance of a thousand years of Monarchical socialism (kings, kings, kings), "Conservative" as a term IN EUROPE meant "traditional" but "liberal" meant "progressive". The linkage, having no valid heritage on our side of the Atlantic pond, rooted in our political landscape later in the 20th century and became a determining paradigm in our thinking.

One example (by no means the only one):

Since communism in the modern era challenged the old corrupt order of things in Europe, anything which was opposed to the communists, was deemed to be "conservative." The Nazis opposed the Russians, so the term "conservative"  got linked to Nazi and "liberal" got linked to Communism.

Even the Sino-Soviet split (Chinese communists vs. Russian communists) played into which country, at any given time, was perceived by us as "the good guy" and thus enjoyed trade and economic aid benefits from us. That flipped back and forth for several decades, with Americans paying for BOTH socialistic economies over time.

Politicians, of course, use the same ruse as well.

Why not? They created it.

 

- Just a thought (or two or three...)

- Submitted, Wayne Sedlak, ICHR


 
 






Web Tools by SearchBliss