(Part 8 of the series on Restorationism)
On a philosophical level and contrary to common perceptions, Socialism
is not about the state. Many forms of Socialism are not opposed to property
and/or market economics. Socialism can of course be wedded to the state and
even in this form, where the means of production are controlled by the state,
it can contain many Capitalist elements. It can have functioning markets and
private enterprise but these endeavours are conducted within a collectivist
framework, with National interests put first, and promoting non-individualist
goals.
But at that point many would argue it’s not Socialism at all, but a
rabid form of Statism or Nationalism that seeks to bring all things in
subjugation to the political machine, to capture and harness all social
energies for the state project. If that state is militaristic, expansionist and
racist...well, then you obviously have some problems. All of these systems can
overlap, hence the confusion.
Every political and economic system is fraught with the potential for
abuse and danger. Any system has to possess rigid checks and balances.
Socialists would be the first to tell you the system is about democracy
and hindering the ability of institutions whether it be the state, military, or
the corporate world to gain power over the interests of the people. In that
sense it puts the interests of the group over the interests of the individual.
Americans have usually failed to grasp this because in our culture the
government is largely viewed as 'the enemy'... the stern parent that we try to
find ways to deceive, cheat, and hide from. Government is viewed as an alien
force within the land. I even find people who work for the government
possessing this mindset. They apply this view to almost every aspect of
government...with the exception of the particular department they work in.
Surveys demonstrate the same pattern among the electorate. The public detests
the congress, often with the exception of their particular representatives.
They're alright...it's everybody else.
In Europe, especially Northern Europe, you'll find less of a culture
that seeks to cheat or outwit the government. If you ask them why, they'll
respond, "We're the government. When we cheat, we're only cheating
ourselves."
Both views represent certain healthy impulses. For me, I certainly
would probably lean toward the American view. I am sceptical and wary of power,
and yet I also see significant problems when our individualism is taken to such
an extreme that it literally creates a dysfunctional or broken society.
In our country many have
confused democratic rights and prerogatives with individual rights and desires.
They are not the same. One is self-serving, the other views individual liberty
as both a right and a responsibility.[i]
I know the Bible speaks of government as a 'minister' for good. And
every Dominionist will point this out to you when they wish to promote their
form of government. But of course it can also become a Beast, and likewise
every Christian Rightist will point out the dangers of government. I agree, but
I also extend the criticism to their forms. Despite their protests I label
government as something of a necessary evil.
But the key word is necessary. The problem isn't with government per
se. The problem is with scope and scale. I think many political and economic
systems will work but it depends on context and extent. For example the Israeli
Kibbutzim are communistic farming enterprises and they work rather well. Why?
They're voluntary and they're small. It's one thing to live in a communistic
polity of fifty people on five hundred acres, and something far different when
you live in a country of fifty million, spanning thousands of square miles.
This is where all these systems break down. And I also believe in a
dynamic principle that undoes every single paradigm. The model might work for a
few weeks or a few years and then everything changes again.
Or to put it differently, it might seem to work. Usually when the
wisdom of hindsight is applied, a different analysis can be made.
I don't have faith in a market or in the ability of central planners to
maintain stability. I do in a community of a few thousand but not in a society
of millions. I hope to elaborate on these things later, but for the moment I
wish to return to why so many Christians of the non-Sacralist stripe have (when
given their preference) leaned toward what we might call Socialistic policy.
And the reasons for this, the thinking and impulses behind it further
exacerbate the already wide gulf between them and the Sacralists they
necessarily must interact with....a gulf so wide as to seriously hinder the
ability to share in fellowship.
Government is a 'servant' in the sense that it serves God's plan of
Common Grace and Divine Restraint. Government, the threat of violence[ii]
is a Means employed by God to maintain this present temporary order. Government
is about stability and order. If you're being orderly and doing good things,
most of the time you won't have any trouble. The government by its very nature
doesn't want to destabilize society by incarcerating thousands and destroying
potential revenue.[iii]
Government is not a minister or servant in the sense that it is somehow
part of or contributing to the Kingdom of God. The interview with Pilate, the
coin to be rendered to Caesar and many other New Testament passages indicate
this.[iv]
Historically Socialism was concerned with representing the interests of
the people over and against either adherence to a rigid law, or an
individualism that disregards the collective interest. Enshrining law and
checking pure democratic impulses are one of the hallmarks of historical
Republicanism and also represent some of the impulses found within American
Conservatism.
Democratic Socialism tends to be more fluid, more willing to discard
historical legal forms in order to address the public and practical needs of
the present.
Some forms of Socialism can indeed be Utopian. All political doctrines
possess this danger. However, there are many forms of Libertarian or Anarchic
Socialism. While this may sound oxymoronic, it is not the case. These schools
of thought place an emphasis on creating an equitable society, not necessarily
a society that eradicates the differences between rich and poor but one willing
to allow the poor to live with a certain dignity and humanity and probably a
society that will not functionally allow the rich to reach levels of
ostentatious abundance.
How then is it Libertarian or Anarchic? This is in terms of personal
liberties. The state doesn't try to regulate the personal conduct of its
citizens or control what they do with their personal property as long as it
doesn't affect others. The police state is weakened and people are allowed to
express themselves in terms of religion, speech, and to a certain extent
conduct. This is the antithesis of what most on the Christian Right would wish
for. Contrary to the verbal praise for the 1st Amendment, they don't
believe in personal liberty at all. They want to be involved in virtually every
aspect of your life and behaviour, even as candidate Rick Santorum said...in
your bedroom.
Thus all Sacralists are violently opposed to these forms of Anarchism
and Libertarianism. Both emphasize the
individual's freedom versus a moral ideal to be imposed on society.
Anarchism is another term greatly misunderstood. Punk Rockers might
wish for social chaos and breakdown, but Anarchists have historically believed
it is the state itself which promotes strife and social inequity, it is the
state which promotes discord through the use of violence in order to enforce
the law, the will of the few over the will of the many. For some it indeed can
boil down to a form of anti-authoritarianism. For others it means the rights of
the individual and a social context that does not use state-violence to force
conformity to a state ideal. Society is voluntary. Pure Anarchism is
incompatible with a Christian doctrine of sin and depravity. Anarcho-Socialism
is not Christian by any means, but it can create a society in which Christians
can function.[v]
But isn't Anarchism tied in with violence, assassinations and bomb
throwing? In some cases, yes. With all of these ideologies comes not just the
ideology itself but a separate or companion theory or ideology of Revolution.
How do you bring your system into practice? Some revolutionaries believed in an
evolutionary progression through various economic and political models. Some
(like Gandhi) believed in peaceful revolution. Others believed violence was
necessary to rid the world of the Ancien Regime, the Old Orders....violence to
bring about peace. Don't confuse revolutionary theory with socio-political
doctrine. They don't always go together.
For example while many would scoff at the differentiation between
Marxism and Leninism, there are key differences. One of them, and an important
one, is that Lenin believed the Communist society could only come about through
violent revolution. Marx never taught that. He taught conscious workers would
gain political control and essentially vote in Communism. So while Lenin held
to many of the same ideas as Marx, he also cobbled together a theory of
revolution that Marx would have found antithetical to his narrative of history
and ultimately contrary to his own system.
The freedom spoken of by American Conservatives, especially of this
Sacralist variety is a freedom limited to those in complete ideological allegiance
with the social order and this liberty has boundaries that are at best fluid.
Sometimes freedom is very absolute when it comes to something like gun rights,
but other times these rights can evaporate in the face of crisis and the need
for security. It is freedom within parameters established by historical ideals,
a ruling class, and expediency.
Christian varieties of American political conservatism heavily
influenced by Absolute Idealism have sought to re-shape the political order to
bring all of society in line with their quest for a Monism...a coherent,
consistent, singly focused society. While the first variety of American
Conservatism is not overly democratic, this Christian version is actually pretty
hostile to individuals controlling the legislative compass of society....and
thus it must be questioned that if this movement is opposed to democracy, whether
it can rightly be called conservative at all? Are they conservative because
they express patriotism? Are they patriots when actually they would seek to
undo what previous generations have done?
Some err in believing true democracy is somehow Christian. It is not.
It simply may be as Churchill put it, the worst form of government except all
the others that have been tried. He was also correct to point out that one of
the strongest arguments against democracy was to spend five minutes talking to
the average voter.
Democracy isn't Christian but it helps break centralized power.
Socialism is usually associated with centralized power and again it can be, but
Socialism in a strongly democratic context (like in France or Britain) can
blunt power, create stability, and promote freedom. Or to put it another way,
in the United States the people tend to fear the government. In a true
Democracy, the government is afraid of the people. We can be thankful for that,
but the implications of it are going to limit our involvement. It's something
that must be thought on.
In the end each and every example cited will also break down. Every
country has its history and social problems as well. I will simply say many
Europeans find American Democracy to be something of a sham and find our
society to be very unjust and lacking in the realm of freedom.
Do I want a 'strong' America or France? No, that's not my concern in
the least. I want the peace of Babylon and in the United States our broken
system is pushing our society toward instability and I think ultimately
violence. Rather than promote peace the Christian political wing is fomenting
this.
[i] What is astonishing is that in the United States
millions of people are coerced either through fallacious moral argument or rank
propaganda to vote against their own interests. The United States is almost
unique in this fact and it says a great deal about our culture. Their actions
are not altruistic. Large segments of the public are literally unable to grasp that they're often voting for
politicians and policies that are against them... but think they're supporting
not only what is right but people and ideas which will benefit them.
You find the poor voting
for policies which hurt them and aid the wealthy. You find some in wealthier
sections of society who do to pro-market commitments voting to protect say the
insurance industry which in fact places strangling restrictions on many
industries and in turn frustrating the very people who support them. Many of
the lower classes vote for militarist candidates and yet they disproportionately
suffer from America’s Imperial wars.
[ii] I feel the need to keep revisiting this because the
concept seems difficult for some to grasp. Law is about force. Even a parking
ticket contains a threat of violence. It is issued by a person wearing uniform
and bearing a badge of the state. Not paying it is no big deal, but if you let
it go long enough, if you get enough of them, at some point…eventually, the
state will act. And when they issue you a larger fine or seek to impound your
car there’s also a threat. Just try and stop them, I mean physically stop them.
No matter what the law, at some point your non-compliance ends up with a
uniformed man in standing in front of you wielding a gun. That’s what
government is. It’s viewed as legitimate because socially we’ve all contracted
and agreed that we allow this mechanism to wield the violence for the greater
good. When parallel law enforcement mechanisms arise (vigilante groups, Brown
shirts etc…) then it’s a sure sign the government is losing its grip on power.
Even seemingly innocuous
laws contain a threat of violence and it must be asked as to whether or not it
is right for a Christian to work for an organization that is in the business of
violence. Some hide behind the notion of ‘office’ while others would say it’s a
realm best left to the fallen world. Not being a holy institution, government
is just a necessary evil, a tool in the arsenal of Providence. It serves its
purpose, often in an ugly fashion, but no more than that.
[iii] This was true even in the hyper-Sacral Middle Ages.
The Church would discover a nest of ‘heretics’ and pushed for persecution, but
often the local or regional lord was reticent. Persecution was bad for society
and bad for business. And often the heretics were good, quiet and productive,
solid law abiding folk. The magistrate was usually more inclined to leave them
be.
One of the primary means
of overturning this during the Counter-Reformation was through the means of
education. The Jesuits in particular were zealous to become the private tutors
to the nobility. If they could inculcate their ideas in the heads of young princelings,
those students when they became adult counts and kings would be loyal allies.
In some parts of Europe this was very successful but ultimately both the
Protestant and Roman projects began to give way to the Enlightenment who in the
end largely defeated both of them.
[iv] And yes I would limit this inquiry largely to the New
Testament. Covenanted Israel has no political analogy after AD70. The parallels
with the Old Testament are ones which would place us as exiles in the
Wilderness or Babylon or as those living in the days of Noah.
[v] Sacralist theorists will say that unbridled autonomy
will lead to the breakdown of basic social structures like the family and the
society will implode. They're right but that doesn't mean the solution is to
call on the state (essentially the threat of violence) in order to affect
change. The Gospel is our weapon not the sword. The Gospel can heal broken
lives, the Sword cannot change the heart. They (the Sacralists) usually wish
for some kind of combination, the Gospel and the State (Sword) working
together. I will again argue that this produces a Sacralized Beast, an
Antichrist state in the end.
Undoubtedly we're
viewing the breakdown of American society. Put no confidence in princes nor for
help on man depend. All these social orders including the United States will
ultimately fail an end up on the ash heap of history. In the grand scheme and
scope of history, the United States was another copycat Roman Empire and will
likewise fail. Life, and certainly the Kingdom of God go on. This order has run
its course, men will come up with new (flawed) ideas and it will all happen
again. The crisis comes when the Sacralist has put so much energy and hope into
one of these flawed and faulty political constructs.