Archive: Fatal Attraction Part II

The Seductive Promises of Socialism Have Betrayed the Poor

By Clark H. Pinnock

(In Part I Pinnock expressed concern for how our Christian concern for the poor has been unwisely routed along the tracks of collectivist economics. If we are truly concerned for the poor, Pinnock argued, it is neither wise nor prudent to side with an ideology which has such a bad record in regard to reducing the misery of poor people. He cited socialism as one of the most powerful myths of the modern era and warned that political theology can easily be a substitute for faith rather than an expression of it. In Part II Pinnock focuses more specifically on how the poor are being betrayed by the empty promises of socialism.

A Betrayal of The Poor

Turning now from the broad picture to the more specific problem of poverty and its relief, let’s move from theory to practice. Let’s be concerned for the poor themselves, for the missed opportunities in relation to helping them, and for the harm which is done to them by means of bad public policy which feeds upon socialist myths. In this area good intentions are simply not enough. They can bring disaster upon the people we want to help if hopes are not informed by wisdom and prudence. Ignorance is not harmless; in the real world our illusions can have awful consequences.

In short, we must learn to look closely at practicalities, at real outcomes. It is a wicked thing, for example, to weaken a society which promises to raise the poor from deprivation, and it is a wicked thing to give support to a self-styled utopia which does not. Such activity is not just an intellectual error which can be brushed aside; it inflicts real pain upon those least able to bear it. A “good” ideology, like a good bridge, carries vehicles across the valley; a “bad” ideology harms people, including the poor. The system which offers freedom and opportunity for material advancement to the poor is a good system in practice. No theology deserves to be called a liberation theology unless it can be shown to produce liberation from poverty.[1]

The sham has strong support among self-styled liberation theologians who link the gospel and socialism in an exclusive way. The definite preference for socialism and keen distaste for democratic capitalism among them is obvious.[2] It might be unrealistic to expect some theologians to be proponents of market economics, but we should not tolerate total blindness to the failure of Marxist economics. Whatever may be the perceptions of market economics from the South American standpoint, the fact remains that Marxism has been tried and found seriously wanting. The verdict is in; socialism is a utopian vision which in practice betrays the poor, and for this reason it ought to be repudiated. Precisely for the sake of the poor, we must stop dreaming and begin to accept economic reality.[3]

Why Centrally-Planned Economies Fail To Produce

It seems almost necessary to shake some churchmen and say, “Don’t just look, see!” —See how centrally planned economies fail to be productive. All the countries in the Soviet empire prove the point, as do all those unfortunate African states which have tried Marxism. China has had all the problems also but is now adopting some market strategies that are beginning to work. The basic reason for socialism’s failure is clear. It shackles the dynamic creativity of people (which is the source of wealth creation) and replaces it with a vast bureaucracy which is notoriously inefficient. Instead of serving the people at large, it serves the “nomenklatura,” or the ruling class, in the system.

It is important not to lose sight of this point. Socialism does serve a group of people very well, namely the functionaries of the state apparatus. Socialism is hard to dislodge because this large, ruling class has a strong, vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Significantly, the semi-socialist welfare states of the West run on the same principle: Welfare state policies intended for the poor primarily increase the material well-being of the administering bureaucracies. The rhetoric may be social justice, but the reality is economic payoffs to the politically favored.

Marxist systems hurt most people because they make economic calculation impossible. Nothing can rival the efficiency with which the market sets prices and indicates priorities. Central economic planning simply cannot compete with the way the system of private property rights (this is what capitalism really is) encourages efficiency and growth. Democracy is also not possible under Marxism because neither political nor economic liberties can be tolerated if the system is to work. It is all very well to protest and say that the Soviet Union is not the model of socialism one wishes to follow—but wishes are not facts, and the fact of the matter is that the theory of central planning itself implies the Soviet practice or something very like it.[4]

Market Economies Have Raised Living Standards

Market economies, on the other hand, have been remarkably and even spectacularly successful in raising the standard of living of whole populations. No system has ever been so effective in wealth creation and productive power.[5] That is true not only of the Western powers in general, but true also in modern Asia where Japan has, in 40 years, become a giant economic power, where South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore are all booming economically, and where Mainland China itself is throwing Marx away in favor of market incentives. Pointing to these Asian countries is very important here because their experience proves that recently poor countries can even now raise themselves from poverty, not by opting out of but by entering into the world capitalist system.[6]

Again, it is obvious why this is happening. Liberal economies have the ability to make full use of knowledge and human creativity. In an open system, anyone can try out a new product or approach to see if it will work. If the idea is a dud, the market will blow it away just as quickly as it appeared, with very little waste of resources. But if the idea is a winner, people will vote for it when they decide to buy the product or service. There is simply no way that a centrally planned, top-down economy can perform this function in a comparable way. Socialism may sound good in theory and look good on paper, but it simply does not work. The simple truth is that wealth is more effectively generated within a market economy than a state-owned economy. [7]

Market Economies Realistic About Human Nature

To put it in different terms, the market approach works well because it is realistic about human nature. Socialism works poorly because it presupposes saints. The market puts people in a position where it is to their own advantage as well as to ours that they serve us well. The baker will try to produce a fine loaf—not because he is morally good (he often is), but because we will shop elsewhere if he does not. Thus, his prosperity depends on serving us well. The system requires him to perform politely and capably, whatever his mood or his morals. In this way the system makes the best of a fallen world and operates shrewdly and well within it.

At the same time, it’s important to add that the exchange economy presupposes a degree of truthfulness and honesty in the making and keeping of agreements. It presumes upon a measure of moral character which lies in the province of religion to foster. To function well a market economy requires certain human qualities such as self-discipline, honesty and a belief in the future. If those qualities are absent or in decline, the market system is in danger. But those traits are not utopian. They can be acquired in various ways—most completely through Christian conversion.

A comparison of socialism and capitalism with respect to their abilities to supply political liberties and material abundance shows capitalism to be the clear winner. It is far from perfect, of course, but it is the most truly revolutionary force yet discovered in relation to the realization of material well-being. Consequently, capitalism is and ought to be the natural ally for any liberation theology which is serious about liberty, both political and economic.

The dynamics at work here transcend merely theoretical ideology. Again, a good mechanic is the one who can fix my brakes, and a good economic theory is the one which in application makes the best use of scarce resources and generates the most wealth for the greatest number without doing injustice to others. For this practical reason I think it is obvious that Christians ought to give their qualified support to the practice of capitalism and the market economy. For years left-wing churchmen have sung the praises of such disastrous experiments as Ghana and Cuba. It is now time for us to give at least two cheers for capitalism. Why is it wrong to give due credit to a system which delivers freedom and prosperity, when a failed theory has been praised for decades?

Capitalism And the Peril of Prosperity

Christians should speak on behalf of the market approach, because poor societies are looking for good advice and even depend upon it. Our support for capitalism has to be qualified. Our societies in North America and Europe are badly flawed, partly because of the harm which material abundance does when it is selfishly consumed. The success of the market in supplying people’s needs can also be their downfall morally and spiritually. Ironically, the prosperity of the West (which is due to its Christian, capitalist heritage) is the very thing which Satan, the beguiling serpent, now uses to jeopardize the vitality of the churches. But at least in a free economy individuals have the opportunity to make responsible use of their resources, since they have an opportunity to invest in the kingdom of God and on behalf of those in need. In Marxist economies the opportunity is taken away.

It is important for church leaders to speak out on behalf of peace and justice. Their witness can be the inspiration and source of hope for millions of Christians. But it is also important, when ministers wish to address specific issues, that they make use of the expertise required to do so convincingly. Good intentions are not enough if the actions selected do more harm than good. It might even be wise as a matter of principle if professional theologians would stick to declaration of biblical principles, while laypersons with the requisite economic training and experience work out the implications and implementations. A preacher may be right to say we ought to assist the poor in a certain place without pretending himself to know how best to achieve that, apart from sacrificial assistance to relieve the immediate necessities. We have had more than enough uninformed rhetoric from church bureaucrats in recent years in support of policies which have proved ruinous.[8] The pursuit of utopia is a betrayal of the poor.

Conclusion: Political Salvations A Deadly Myth

Statism is one of the great idols of the modem world. Political redemption or salvation through the gargantuan state, presented under the guise of “social justice,” is a deadly myth which Christians ought to oppose.[9] We need to see reality: Facts are facts, and facts dictate that any society with a social conscience should adopt a market approach, with whatever refinements its citizens wish to introduce along the way.

“Liberation” theology has been helpful in reintroducing hope for history into the Christian perspective again after a century of gloom and doom pessimism. Like the old Reformed post-millennial eschatology, some theologians of the left actually dare to believe that Christ is Lord and can bring the nations under His righteous rule. They spoil that achievement by relying on Marx’s theory rather than on Jesus’ word and power, but they do deserve credit for reminding us that “in Abraham’s seed shall all the nations of earth be blessed” with peace, justice, and prosperity. And indeed, all the nations will be, thanks be to God!

Dr. Clark H. Pinnock is professor of theology at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, and the author of Reason Enough, Set Forth Your Case and other books. This article was excerpted from Freedom, Justice, and Hope, edited by Marvin Olasky, 1988. Used by permission of Good News Publishers/Crossway Books, Westchester, Illinois 60154.

 

[1] Michael Novak places his criticism of liberation theology precisely on this issue of praxis: Freedom with Justice, Catholic Social Thought and Liberal Institutions (San Francisco, Calif.: Harper & Row, 1984 ), chap. 10. See also Novak, editor, Liberation South, Liberation North (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1981).

[2] Deane William Ferm, op. cit., pp. 107-115.

[3] A recent example of the continuing romance with socialism even among evangelicals is Andrew Kirk, The Good News of the Kingdom Coming (London: Marshall, 1983).

[4] See Sven Rydenfelt, A Pattern for Failure, Socialist Economies in Crisis (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984), pp. 117-124.

[5] See Paul Johnson’s contribution to Will Capitalism Survive?, Ernest W. Lefever, ed. (Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1979), p.5.

[6] This is one of several unique features of Berger, The Capitalist System, chap. 7: “East Asian Capitalism.”

[7] Brian Griffiths, The Creation of Wealth (Downers Grove, lll.: lnterVarsity Press, 1984), chap. 2.

[8] A call for prudence is one of the valuable features of J. Brian Benestad, The Pursuit of a Just Social Order, Policy Statements of the US Catholic Bishops, 1966-80 (Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1982).

[9] This is a central concern of Herbert Schlossberg’s book, Idols for Destruction (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983).