by Steve | Jan 4, 1990 | Archive - 1990
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).
by Steve | Nov 23, 1989 | Archive - 1989
Archive: Fatal Attraction
The Seductive Promises of Socialism Have Subverted Our Concern for the Poor
Part One
by Clark H. Pinnock
We live in an era of the unprecedented expansion of the Christian movement throughout the world. Ours is a hopeful time of great opportunity for discipling the nations and making a significant impact upon cultures around the world, particularly in the direction of relief and development.
Disagreement accompanies that opportunity, though. Christians disagree on how believers should pursue the task of helping the poor (aside from acts of generous charity, on which we generally do not disagree). Ideology is dividing Christians from one another. In our search for answers to the problem of poverty some look to socialism and its constellation of ideas, while others have different recommendations. It would be pleasant to leave ideology aside and concentrate entirely upon “kingdom” issues, but that, sadly, is not possible. An ideology is basically a set of ideas which attempts to explain the world and suggests ways to change it for the better; an ideology can also trap and seduce us by blinding the mind and preventing it from seeing reality.[1]
To be blunt, I am troubled at the way in which our proper Christian concern for the poor has been unwisely routed along the tracks of collectivist economics. That long detour seriously jeopardizes the possibility of doing effective good and threatens to short-circuit well-meaning Christian intentions. If we are serious about “God’s preferential option for the poor” (to use the jargon of liberation theology), then it is neither wise nor prudent to side with an ideology which, as I will argue, has such a bad record in regard to reducing the misery of poor people.
A Sad Case of Ideological Entrapment
My argument is that our frequent lack of good judgment about poverty questions is rooted in an entrapment. Whenever the issue of ideological entrapment is raised some believers cite the Nazi “Christians” (or perhaps, to some, even the religious right in the United States) as examples of a bad tendency. But there is a very serious case of entrapment which few are willing to name: the tendency of a significant number of church leaders in the 20th century to tie the cause of God’s kingdom to the cause of communism or socialism in some milder form.
This entangling alliance can be compared without much exaggeration to the alignment in Germany of the kingdom of God with the Nazi ideology.[2] What makes the comparison appropriate is the fact that the Marxist movement is not just a failure as a self-proclaimed revolutionary force in improving the lot of the poor, but it is also a unique historical evil even in the 20th century which has witnessed many evils on a massive scale.
Marxism has led to the starvation and murder of millions of victims on the very borders of the West, while many of our political and intellectual leaders and even some church leaders have looked the other way and prattled on about the bright new hope of socialism. Alexander Solzhenitsyn and many others have documented the torture and oppression carried out by socialist dictators against their own unfortunate peoples. Between fascism and communism there seems to be no practical difference.[3]
There is a danger of getting sidetracked into telling the dismal story of the romance of certain churchmen with Marxism and the left in general; what we really need to focus on is the foolish act of endorsing collectivist economic practice which has harmed the poor so much. We have to see that socialism is the great political myth of the 20th century and that its appeal is precisely mythical and not empirical. No one could be attracted to socialism on empirical grounds because evidence of its successes does not exist. The attraction is the seductive appeal which myth has for the human imagination.[4]
Briefly, then, let’s itemize some of the pieces of evidence which reveal ideological entrapment. Before 1960 support for Marxism was visible in what Paul Hollander calls political tourism.[5] Hewlett Johnson (the pathetic and amusing Red Dean of Canterbury), along with many intellectuals such as Bernard Shaw, Arthur Koestler and Malcolm Muggeridge, traveled to the Soviet Union in the 30s, at the very time Stalin was consolidating his total power and beginning to liquidate millions under his iron rule. They came back to the West singing the praises of the great socialist revolution in Russia. Their desire to believe the seductive promises of the revolutionary myth robbed them of practically every vestige of critical reason.[6]
Since 1960 the situation has deteriorated further. Christians on the left no longer praise Stalin, but some continue to applaud the ideology on which he based his murderous power. So-called liberation theologians and church leaders proclaim an alliance between Christians and Marxists and see socialism as the way to move beyond class-based society.[7] Miranda, admittedly more radical than most, goes so far as to equate communism and Christianity.[8]
True, the various liberationist writers usually take pains to say they find fault with some dimensions of Marxism, but their criticisms are never so radical as to prevent them from supporting Marxist revolutions. In their view no matter what is wrong with socialism, capitalism is worse. In line with this thinking the World Council of Churches has assisted Marxist guerillas in Africa under the guise of combating racism. In a brilliant display of double standards, these same churchmen are silent about human rights violations in Cuba, Ethiopia and Angola while complaining bitterly about infractions in South Africa and El Salvador. Political pilgrims are currently flocking to Nicaragua to see the latest revolution firsthand.[9]
Some Christians support a very ugly reality in a less direct way. The sainted “peace movement,” for example, is supported by many who have good intentions but little prudence. The peace movement’s greatest success so far was to compel a U.S. retreat from Vietnam and help to make possible the genocide in Cambodia and the wretched oppression of Communist Vietnam from which thousands continue to try to flee in flimsy boats upon dangerous seas. Yet some Christians do not seem to recognize how their noble-sounding efforts serve the cause of Marxist oppression. It feels so good to be for “peace” that they do not want to spoil it by facing facts.
More folly is evident when many churchmen enthusiastically endorse Lenin’s discredited theory that poverty in the two-thirds world was somehow caused by the prosperity of the West Lenin concocted that dependency theory to explain why Marx’s own predictions about capitalism had failed so badly and to account for the rising standard of living on the part of the proletariat in the West Lenin’s gambit obviously has great appeal for the leaders of impoverished states looking for someone to blame for their own deficiencies or bad decisions, but its appeal for Western churchmen can only be explained in terms of seduction by Marxist myth.[10]
There is even a distinct possibility that support from churchmen, coming at a time when Marxism has lost most of its legitimacy and mythical appeal (owing to its brutality and colossal failures), will actually prolong the life of communist empires. What a supreme irony it would be if Christians were to give Marxism the religious legitimacy which it could never have generated for itself as a secular doctrine!
The Utopian Fallacy
The alignment of some Christians with Marxism can be explained by invoking the category of the utopian myth. Human hope for salvation in history—the millennial longing for a world purified of evil—is immense. Christianity provides a solution, but those who want change according to their timetables, not God’s, sweep aside even developed critical judgment in their rush to force open the gates of Eden. In this respect socialism possesses a clear “advantage” over capitalism. Socialism is one of the most powerful myths of the modem era, and the fact that it is nowhere realized only adds to its appeal.
It is vital to understand that a fugitive vision of this sort forever tantalizes those who long for it. Capitalism may produce better results in terms of productivity. It may produce a better car at a cheaper price. Capitalism, however, cannot compete with socialism in the area of romantic appeal.[11] This quality of romance has enabled Marxists to disregard the empirical data and persist in policies long after they have been seen to be ruinous.
Given our theology, Christians may be understandably vulnerable to ideological seduction from the utopian left. For one thing, God’s Spirit makes us sensitive to our own sins and failings, and this can alienate us from our own admittedly imperfect society. Indeed some of us feel so keenly the shortcomings of Western culture that we are prone to accept even false charges hurled against it and idealize societies just out of view, especially if they make a claim to social justice as Marxist regimes always do.
Paradoxically, it is easy for us to become estranged from our own society at the very moment millions are desperate to emigrate to it Somehow that socialist utopia just over the horizon must be a better place, we think, whether it be Tanzania, South Yemen or Albania. Just listen to the Christian terminology socialists use about equality and brotherhood!
But a deeper cause of our willing seduction lies in the millennial dimension of the Gospel message itself. Do we not pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10)? Do we not long to see Christ transform the nations and create a just and peaceful society? Of course we do, and this very fact exposes us to hucksters peddling the miracle ideology guaranteed to deliver the millennium for us.
How easy it is to be indifferent about practicalities in the realm of hope and religion; how easy to want to treat all people as if they were saints—not sinners; how easy to relish a foolish course of action in the name of a greater faith! Whatever moral grandeur can be found in the rhetoric of Marx is more than destroyed in the deadly havoc which has resulted from the implementation of his theories.
Part of today’s problem also lies in the secularization of the faith of certain of the theologians themselves. I would not want to suggest that all left-leaning Christians suffer from a loss of faith. But it is clear that political theology can easily be a substitute for faith rather than an expression of it. Owing to a crisis of faith in the message of the Bible, religious liberals during the past two centuries have sought to perform various kinds of salvage operations in order to have something left over once the old faith disappeared.[12]
Furthermore, intellectuals are unlike ordinary people in that they tend to feed upon ideas rather than realities. Many like nothing better than the grand theory which seems to tie everything together in a perfect mental system. Therefore, many gravitate to utopian schemes like Marx’s, and it seldom crosses their minds to ask the prosaic question of why the masses prosper under market economies and suffer deprivation under centrally planned systems.
The specter of Marxism as a failed myth comes clearly to expression in the new English edition of the work of Ernst Bloch. His work (some 1500 pages in English translation) is perhaps the most extravagant defense of Marxism ever mounted. Here we see a man whose mind was so obsessed by the hope for paradise that he refused to look reality in the face. Looking forward to the Novum, to the kingdom of God without God, he was able to persuade himself that this glorious future had begun to take shape in the Soviet system. From the purges, the gulags and the forced collectivization, Bloch has evidently learned nothing. The only fascism he can see is in the United States. Here we find a man so obsessed by utopia that he can condone mass murder in its name.[13]
In the end, the legacy of Marx is to have bequeathed a myth to the world so strong that it can withstand a thousand refutations. Brutality and folly notwithstanding, the vision is likely to endure because of its seductive power, particularly if Christians are taken in by it.
This article is excerpted from Freedom, Justice and Hope: Toward a Strategy for the Poor and the Oppressed, Marvin Olaslcy, editor; chapter 4, “The Pursuit of Utopia” by Clark H. Pinnock. Used by permission of Good New, Publishers/ Crossway Books, Westchester, Illinois 60154.
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Gregory Bawn discusses ideology in broader terms in his book Religion and Alienation, A Theological Reading of Sociology (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), for example on pp. 99-111.
[2] Robert P. Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler (New Haven: Yale, 1985).Also Richard J. Neuhaus, “The Obligations and Limits of Political Commitment,” This World, August 1986, pp. 55-69.
[3] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the Western World (London: BBC, 1986) is one of his many books. See also Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow, Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1986), and Paul Johnson, Modern Times, the World from the Twenties to the Eighties (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983).
[4] Sociologist Peter L. Berger has best pointed this out: The Capitalist Revolution, chap. 9.
[5] Paul Hollander, Political Pilgrims, Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba 1928-1978 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981).
[6] Lloyd Billingsley tells this story in The Generation That Knew Not Josef: a Critique of Marxism and the Religious Left (Portland, Ore.: Multnomah Press, 1985).
[7] See John Eagleson, ed., Christians and Socialism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1975), pp. 161, 163, 168, 169. The larger picture is painted by Andrew Kirk, Liberation Theology: an Evangelical View from the Third World (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979) and by Deane W. Ferm, Third World Liberation Theologies: an Introductory Survey (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986).
[8] J.P. Miranda, Communism in the Bible (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1982).
[9] Blase Bonpane calls on his readers to join in the armed struggle as Christmas in a charming book entitled Guerrillas for Peace, Liberation Theology and the Central American Revolution (Boston: South End Press, 1985). For more information on the leftist involvements of these churchmen, see Ernest W. Lefever, Amsterdam to Nairobi, the World Council of Churches and the Third World (Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1979); Paul Seabury, “Trendier Than Thou, the Episcopal Church and the Secular World,” Harper’s Magazine, October and December 1978; and Richard J. Neuhaus, ‘The World Council of Churches and Radical Chic,” Worldview Vol. 20 (1977), pp. 14-22.
[10] Thomas Sowell, Marxism, Philosophy and Economics (New York: William Morrow, 1985), pp. 213-215; P. T. Bauer, “Western Guilt and Third World Poverty,” in Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusions (Boston: Harvard University Press 1981).
[11]Peter Berger, The Capitalist Revolution, p. 208ff. He Writes, “Socialism is one of the most powerful myths of the modern era; to the extent that socialism retains this mythic quality, it cannot be disconfirmed by empirical evidence in the minds of its adherents” (p. 215).
[12] This is the thesis of Van A. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer (New York: Macmillan, 1966).
[13] Ernest Bloch, The Principle of Hope (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1985). Let us not forget that Bloch was the inspiration for Moltmann’s Theology of Hope (New York: Harper & Row, 1967).