Communism, Capitalism, and Christian Community
James P. Danaher, Professor of Philosophy and Department Head
Nyack College, Nyack, NY
In heaven there will be no partition of goods. Greed and self-interest will be no more, and true community will prevail. In David Hume`s An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, he says that in such a paradise every virtue will flourish except justice and respect for individual property.
It seems evident, that, in such a happy state, every other social virtue would flourish, and receive tenfold increase; but the cautious, jealous virtue of justice, would never once have been dreamt of. For what purpose make a partition of goods, where every one has already more than enough?
Hume points out that in both circumstances of great abundance and great privation, property rights are none existent. When there is great abundance, if someone should take the apple from my hand, I simple pick another. Likewise, when there is great scarcity, the fact that the apple is in my hand does not stop another from taking it from me in order to survive. It is only in this middle realm between heaven and hell where money and private property have any meaning.
Communism (as a practice of economic sharing within a community) is certainly the ideal for Christians. It is that heavenly state toward which we aspire. Of course, we find ourselves in a state very different from that. True, some Christians have tried to produce such communities in this here and now. First-century Christians, as well as some saints in later ages, chose to live, not in this middle realm, but as close as possible to God`s kingdom. In the book of Acts we are told that the early Christians "had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need (Acts 2:45)." It seems that shortly after believers were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the early Christians practiced a form of communism. They seem to have taken Jesus` command literally when he said, "go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" (Mt 19:21). But was this "communism" the biblical prescription for all Christians to follow?
Some have tried to argue that market capitalism and private property have always been the scriptural ideal. They argue that it was a mistake for the early church to practice communism and that such a practice led to an economic disaster in Jerusalem. Paul does mention sending money back to Jerusalem for the poor (Acts 24:17). The argument is that the reason there were poor in Jerusalem was because of their less than prudent practice of communism. Such an interpretation is hard to accept, however, given the fact that the mention of this common life comes immediately after, and seemingly as a consequence of, being filled with the Holy Spirit.
They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions were his own, but they shared everything they had (Acts 4:31-32).
Even if it were true that their communism was less than prudent it does seem to be something that was led by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Holy Spirit`s leading which caused them to proclaim "the word of God boldly" may not have been prudent either. It led to some of them being martyred. Certainly prudence was not what motivated them to follow the Holy Spirit`s leading. Rather their natural inclination of placing self-interest above the interest of others seems to have been overcome by a love for their brethren and a desire to live as close as possible to the kingdom of God.
The President of the college where I teach commented some time ago that the reason we are into diversity is not because it is an "in thing." The reason for being into diversity is because someday we will sit down at the marriage supper of the lamb, and at that feast there will be people of every race, ethnic group, and intelligence level. That will be the nature of kingdom-living, and therefore we should now want to live as close to that as possible. The same is true concerning private property, and this seems to have been what motivated the early Christians to have all things in common. They sought to live as close to God`s kingdom as possible. Of course, such a saintly ideal is highly impractical and most of us cannot imagine how such a prescription could be applied apart from small groups of monastics or other Christian sects.
If we live in the larger world, how can we disregard our own private interest in order to live on such a common level? Indeed, it may not be possible. Given the reality of a capitalist economic system and the dominant place it now occupies in the world, we may be forced to participate in it in spite of its inherently evil traits. What we cannot do, however, is applaud such a system and claim that it is compatible with the ideals of Christianity. Capitalism is rooted in greed and self-interest, which are antithetical to the Christian ideal of community. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith says, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love."
Capitalism tells us that if we have a need, we do not have to put our hope in the benevolence of others. Instead, we can trust that human greed and self-interest will rush to meet our need at a substantial profit to the one who supplies that need. Rather than having our needs met through the love of others, the market quite neatly meets our needs out of self-love. Christian love for ones neighbor is certainly not as dependable as the love of self upon which market principles are based.
In the market, if the price of an item increases, our greed drives us to enter the market and supply the public with that item for which they are willing to pay such a high price (the law of supply). Likewise, as the price decreases, it is again self-interest that causes us to enter the market, this time as a greedy purchaser eager to take advantage of the lower price (the law of demand). The same greed and self-interest that lies behind these laws of the market also cause competition in order that ever better products are offered for cheaper prices. It is a rather nifty system, and as recent history bears out, it seems to have faired better than communism, which placed its ill-fated hope in human benevolence. What it is not, however, is the Christian ideal.
Of course, many have tried to make it the Christian ideal. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber says that the protestant work ethic was what gave rise to capitalism since the protestant work ethic stressed hard work and the avoidance of worldly goods. If one works hard and spends little on worldly goods, surplus or capital naturally begins to accumulate. Thus, capital is not merely a sign of wealth and power but a sign of godliness as well. This unholy union of Protestantism and capital allows the capitalist to see herself as holy as well as rich and powerful. Furthermore, if wealth is a sign of godliness, poverty must be the result of sin, particularly the sin of either not working hard enough or loving worldly goods too much. I recall a very well-known Christian minister saying on the radio that "the worst message the poor in this country ever got was that poverty was not their fault." He went on to say, "poverty is the fault of the poor." Of course, that is like blaming slavery on the slave. Children are born into poverty just as slaves were born into slavery. More importantly, however, such a position undermines the Christian ideal of disregarding our self-interest and giving to the poor (Mt. 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22).
The point of Christian conversion and transformation is to make us into a people who are full of love and compassion for other sinners because we have experienced love and compassion in the midst of our sin, whatever it might be. We lose our love and compassion when we no longer see ourselves as sinners and begin to call our sin, virtue.
That was the sin of the religious people in Jesus` day. They thought that they were good people, and that God loved them, not because of his mercy, but because of their sinlessness. Their sin was a lack of love and compassion for others who they saw as sinners and very different from themselves. The Gospel is all about the forgiveness of sins, but we must not call our sin, virtue. We cannot, like those religious people, see our lack of love and compassion as the product of our righteousness. Many of us do just that.
It is very easy to fall into a religious mode if we make the protestant work ethic a central part of our Christianity. Such an ethic can cause us to think that we have a right to our enormous surplus, and that those in need are in such a position because of their sin. Thus, we become a people who are quick to religiously point out the sins of others but fail to see our own lack of love and compassion as sin. Like those religious people in Jesus day, we think our sin is in fact virtue, and so we respond with pride rather than contrition.
Certainly there are good arguments to defend capitalism and its principles, just as there are good arguments to defend a woman`s legal right to abortion. It is certainly possible to argue for a woman`s right to abortion on the basis of political equality and the fact that it is unjust to have laws that are not universal but only apply to one segment of the population. That is certainly a defensible argument, but it would be absurd to argue that political equality was a Christian ideal more important than the life of another.
Abortion, in most cases, is motivated by self-interest, and self-interest runs contrary to the ultimate ideal of Christian morality. It is self-interest that keeps us from the ultimate Christian ideal that we see in the Mother Teresas of the world. This is the real sin that keeps us from the fullness of life that God has for us, and this is what lies at the base of both abortion and capitalism. Certainly arguments can be made to defend both, but we cannot pretend that such arguments are based upon the ideals of the Christian saint.
Surely, an amount of self-interest is necessary for survival and basic well-being. The hero and the saint, however, come to represent the ideal for the human condition through a disregard for self. It is their concern for others above themselves that makes them the hero or saint. Of course, such people are not very practical. It was certainly not practical for the Christians martyrs of the early church to do what they did, but we continue to see their action as heroic and saintly. By contrast, however, many who admired those early Christian martyrs scoff at the communism of the early Christians. It would seem that the only reason for distinguishing between martyrdom and communism is that martyrdom is not a real possibility that we might face, while a lack of regard for our own private property is something we face daily.
Clearly, the Christian ideal is to live as close as possible to God`s kingdom now. This is the manner of the saint, who lives out the Christian ideal with a general disregard for her own private interest and property in spite of how impractical that may be. But what are the rest of us to do, if we fall short of that ideal, but still aspire to the Christian life? Indeed, for most of us, the Christian ideal might be an impossible one. The good news, however, is that the Christian life is all about repentance and forgiveness.
The situation seems analogous to a Christian position on violence and war. We live in a world where violence and war may at times be necessary in order to keep our wives from being raped or our children killed, but violence and war are nevertheless moral evils that we cannot glorify or praise as somehow Christian. Violence and war, although inescapable at times, must be something that Christians treat with contrition and repentance. Repentance and forgiveness are keys to the Christian life. God`s forgiveness is readily available to those who repent, but repentance is required. The religious people in Jesus day saw no need for repentance, and we fall into a similar situation when we think that there is no need to treat our violence with contrition, since it was for what we consider a good cause. Equally, we find ourselves in a similar situation when we think that putting self-interest above the interest of others does not require a similar contrition.
Jesus` teachings from the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere should make us aware that we are in an almost constant need for forgiveness and therefore repentance. Our sin is that we are not following Jesus as we ought. Sin is not a problem since Christianity is all about the forgiveness of sin, but we must acknowledge our sin and not call it virtue.
We do just that when we praise our present socio-economic system and claim that such a system based on greed and self-interest is Christian. The fact that most find such a system unavoidable does not make it anymore compatible with the Gospel, and our response to it should be one of contrition. We live in a world where self-interest is the guiding principle and we may have to tolerate that and even conduct ourselves at times according to it. What we cannot do, however, is praise it. Of course, we often do just that. Instead of responding in humility and contrition for our failure to live in the fullness of what Jesus calls us to, we point out how impractical communism is and applaud capitalism for its efficiency. We excuse our sin and claim that it is no sin at all but rather a virtue.
