https://juicyecumenism.com/2024/11/07/answering-socialism/
One need not be an advocate for Socialism to realize that Bernard Mauser is attacking a straw man. If Evangelicals want to offer a critique of socialism, that's fine but if their goal is simply to promote capitalism and to caricature the rival system - then we have a problem not only in the realms of fact and truth, but also with integrity.
This idea that under socialism we have a nanny state is simply false. State ownership of the means of production does not entail a totalitarian model. We have seen such authoritarian and totalitarian models in other situations and given the circumstance they are sometimes celebrated by Christians. Puritan New England and the Medieval Roman Catholic order immediately come to mind. The economy was controlled, speech monitored, books banned, and even things like the naming of children and how to cut your hair were regulated. We can also point to the tyrannical and oppressive control of the 'company towns' - the result of monopolistic capitalism. None of these examples represent socialist systems and so it is fallacy to just assume that such controls are necessarily connected to or represent an outworking of socialism.*
But speaking of the nanny state, more recently we think of Christian involvement in the promotion of public schools in the late 19th and early 20th century in order to make sure immigrant children spoke the right language, would learn conformity (to be good factory workers), and were indoctrinated with WASP American ideology and values. This would counter the claims of outside authorities like the pope among others.
In this case, the WASP Establishment deemed themselves to know better and they had every right (and even duty as they saw it) to intervene and overrule the wishes of parents and churches. Barely three paragraphs into this piece it's clear that both Mauser and Plasterer are off base.
And if Gramsci sought to control the various 'spheres' of culture, he learned it from the WASP forces he wished to resist. Ironically it is Evangelical Dominionism that seeks to capture the very same spheres and control them - censoring enemies and silencing opposition. So the issue is not that some faction seeks to control the reins of society. The issue for Mauser is one of 'who' gets to control them. It's actually an old (and tired) argument the Theonomists have been making for more than forty years.
Now whether Gramsci actually has any bearing on today's debates or the prevalent cultural ideologies is another matter entirely. It certainly can be debated. In some respects his corpus of ideas is broad enough to touch on multiple schools of thought and in the eyes of many Marxists he actually represents a serious deviation from their core tenets.
Mauser goes on to distort the Scriptural record in order to make his point. Jeremiah 5 sets the context for chapter 6. The prophet condemns those who pay lip service to God but have waxed rich and care nothing for the needy and fatherless. They overpass the deeds of the wicked - or as Jeremiah will say later (ch. 23), they strengthen the hands of the evil doers. Further in addition to the prophets prophesying falsely, the priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so. In other words there is clerical corruption and ear tickling and this is what the people want - not godly instruction with its calls to repentance. The false teachers affirm this state of affairs by the proclamation of peace, peace. All is well, God is not angry with you. As chapter 6 indicates, the judgment is coming but they cannot even understand it. They cannot hear God's words with their uncircumcised ears - a sign and declaration of their apostasy and judgment.
The handful of Bible believing Christians attempting to call out the corruption of Evangelicalism are not the prophets of 'peace, peace' but rather the Right-wing mouthpieces who defend the status quo and form evil alliances with powers that will aid them and increase their wealth and status. Mauser is way off mark and he actually condemns himself in the process.
Capitalism promotes the idea of a self-sufficient society compromised of rugged entrepreneurial individuals - an utterly self-defeating notion and one that has no basis in Scripture. The New Testament calls us to be pilgrims and strangers and thus we are alienated from all systems - and all systems are doomed to fail, even those defended and promoted by the likes of Mauser's boss - Southern Seminary president and Trump supporter Albert Mohler. Socialism is ungodly and doomed to fail. Capitalism has nothing more to offer but the same empty materialist hope finding security in mammon and what it can buy. Both hopes are hollow to say the least.
In some cases those on the Right aren't listening very carefully. Their Left-wing critics aren't suggesting that it's wrong to work or have a stable family but rather they're complaining that when the mainstream criticizes them for failing to follow the pattern, they're not taking into account the reason for their cultural state, the collapse of minority families, and the inability to generate and sustain multi-generational wealth.
I do find it particularly rich that for many on the Left (despite their claims), their critiques of the Establishment are not actually systemic, rather they simply wish to appropriate the power structures. The example I referred to before is Princeton and the desire by some to remove the statue of John Witherspoon. While Witherspoon was an evil man and I see no reason to treat his compromised syncretistic Christian profession as credible, at the end of the day the school (Princeton) represents the Establishment and its power. If you're really counter-cultural and adversarial to the system, then you don't go to an Ivy League school. To remove a mere token or symbol of the school's heritage in no way changes what the school and the Ivy League represent. They are literally the schools of the Establishment and all that it is and represents - from Wall Street and its long list of crimes, to the wars of the American Empire. It reminds me of the millionaire ultra-consumer liberals living in huge houses, driving their expensive cars and yet diligently recycling their cans and paper - to help the environment. They are absurd figures and this larger story and debate is dominated by absurdity.
I continue to be baffled by Christians who speak of 'unity' in terms of society. How exactly are we to find unity with Rome or Babylon? How is unity a concern in the New Testament's pilgrim paradigm? The 'theft presupposes private property' not only proves too much, but it begs the questions at certain key points. The assumptions of Libertarianism made by Mauser also assume too much. The New Testament has no issue with a state that shows charity - it is Caesar's coin after all. Let Caesar worry about how to run its corrupt state and hold it together. We go about our business.
Mauser also willingly ignores the fact that many Christians who have (wrongly) attempted to influence and shape government have historically played a critical role in promoting state largesse and charities focused on mercy and the alleviation of poverty. If the state is to reflect Christian values (if granted for the sake of argument) then why would it reflect Libertarianism - an ideology that's actually anti-Christian in its assumptions? Historically no Christians outside of the United States (where Protestantism has historically functioned as the Establishment) have thought so. Power corrupts and it has literally rotted the mind of American Evangelical thinkers and hijacked their exegesis. Sadly, the introduction of the errors of worldview thinking by theologians such as Francis Schaeffer has only amplified this process.
The New Testament tells us to pay our taxes. Paul said to pay them at the time when Nero was Caesar - he did not criticize how that revenue would used, knowing full well it would employed to build pagan temples, pay for bread and circuses, fund gladiatorial games, and wars of conquest. The language that seeks to paint taxation as theft or confiscation marks a rejection of New Testament teaching. The point is that even wicked pagan government is still better than no government - again a repudiation of the Libertarian ethos. All taxation involves redistribution. It's ironic that the Christian Right has no problem with tax revenue being funnelled into unnecessary and corrupt military contracts or to subsidize big business. These industries and the American upper class exude an entitlement mindset. Wealth tends to do that and we are living with the decadence that results. It's true some of the poor are lazy but as I have often argued the rich are able to make better decisions and take risks because they can afford to do so. Many are poor because of sinfulness and stupidity but far more are honest and even smart, but integrity and conscience limit their imagination and it's safe to say that most of the working poor actually work much harder than either the middle or upper classes.
Wurmbrand and Kengor are not reliable historians or commentators. Wurmbrand's understanding of doctrine and ethics are certainly questionable and he's prone to exaggeration and sometimes he simply lies when reporting events. And I raise my eyebrows at any professor hailing from Grove City College, let alone a Roman Catholic revisionist like Kengor. That said, I would probably go much further than most Evangelicals in listening to and embracing some of the Catholic narratives concerning politics and the occult - narratives which touch on Freemasonry and many other movements during the revolutionary 18th and 19th century. The Catholics (like Kengor) who have embraced Americanism, Capitalism, and who celebrate Reagan have a problem - they're not actually conservative, at least not in historical terms.
To try and discredit Marx on the basis of occultic influence is slippery to say the least. It actually strikes me as rather grasping. Shall we talk about the American Founders and their dreams of a masonic utopia? As far as I'm concerned Washington, Franklin, and Madison were all involved in the occult and the ideals found in the Constitution of the United States reflect these same Enlightenment ideals - which historically were viewed as anti-Christian. Does Mauser really want to go down this road?
The shift from Marx's quote regarding 'ruthless criticism' to Critical Race Theory is quite literally an exercise in sleight of hand reasoning.
It's also ironic for if one reads the New Testament, the Christian is exhorted to put others and specifically the Church over the individual. One of the problems with Christendom is that it confuses the Church with society and creates a situation that doesn't work - and clearly very few within the scope of Christendom were actual believers.
Further, one finds that in the Orthodox world one of the biggest grievances with Western man and Western Catholic culture is the emphasis on the individual and how this affects everything from epistemology to ethics. While I'm not likely to entertain joining the ranks of Eastern Orthodoxy, there are nevertheless some interesting points to be made. It would never occur to Mauser but many of the points he takes for granted are in fact assumptions grounded in Enlightenment thought - the fount of all modern materialism whether it be capitalist or Marxist in practice. Some modes of thought he reckons as endemic to socialism - those in the Orthodox world would consider to be Christian. The reality is much bigger than anything Mauser or Plasterer presents.
Capitalism is utterly utilitarian in its approach to ethics - which is why it has fallen into consumerism and a hysterical mass hedonism. And this is why the Western Church and Evangelicalism in particular (which have sold their souls to Capitalism) has been carried along this current. If there's a market for it - it must be moral. The demand creates the imperative. This bankrupt ethic works for the Christian Right until something asserts itself a little too strongly and manifests itself on the Main Street. Then it becomes a problem and suddenly the Free Market no longer appeals. Mauser seems to have forgotten that the New Testament warns about wealth and how it destroys faith. Christ Himself is the most emphatic in his declaration that you cannot serve God and Mammon. Capitalism is the deification of mammon and since the days of Constantine it has plagued the Church through successive iterations and by means of different guises and systems. Mauser is merely its latest proponent.
Socialism presents no threat to the Church - but Capitalism does because when it's given a theological justification it becomes heretical as it teaches the Church to embrace mammonism and usury and it fundamentally changes the nature of ethics and the Christian's relation to the state. Wealth and its concerns drives one into the political fray and especially in our society it all but necessitates the utilisation of the courts - something Christians are exhorted to avoid. But Mauser isn't interested in any of this. His job is to present and pummel a straw man and to use fear as a means to keep the flock faithful. To Christ? Not the Christ of Scripture, but the Christ of America and Americanism. This pseudo-Christ is the messiah of American Evangelicalism.
Mauser further destroys his own credibility by resorting to the tiresome argument that the Nazis were Left-wing socialists - or socialists at all. Their use of the label has generated a great deal of confusion but as all socialists will make abundantly clear - the Hitlerite use of the name was divorced from any historical or academic understanding of the term. They were a Right-wing ultra-nationalist movement that targeted socialists, communists, and others on the Left for destruction. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or deceived.
And for those who wrong associate all collective arrangements as socialist or left wing need only to look back to orders such as that of Christendom or even something as basic as the term 'society' - which implies a collective. It must be granted that the Libertarian ethos of today's American Right is quite literally destroying the fabric of society and I hope they are prepared for the result. As I have so often argued, look to places like Brazil and South Africa to understand. The rich will live in compounds and will be protected by not just walls, but private security and armoured vehicles. The poor without a safety net will be reduced to shanty towns. The US approached this scenario a century ago and many feared a collapse into chaos. Such a society is broken and violent and exists only with walls and guns. In those situations people will plead for a collective and willingly seek the restoration of society. Such conditions are ripe for revolution.
I have seen no evidence in American politics suggesting that anyone is trying to create a homogeneous society. Even so-called socialists and other poseurs like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have nowhere suggested that utilities be nationalised, that the wealth of the billionaires be taken and appropriated, that Goldman Sachs be nationalised and broken up. They have nowhere called for the dismantling of the American Empire and the curtailment of the military and its vast archipelago of bases around the world. Mauser is combatting a straw man but it's effective. Apparently Plasterer was so moved by this nonsense that he felt compelled to report on it. I'm sure his boss (Mark Tooley) approved.
Capitalism does not respect the worth of individuals. Our modern society has made it abundantly clear - even a blind man could see that in our present order individuals are not sovereign or free agents but commodities to be manipulated and exploited. Capitalism tramples on the image of God just as much as socialism does. Profits are paramount - above jobs, families, property, and cultures. Capitalism puts efficiency over the needs of the individual and without a flicker of conscience wipes out families, towns, and even countries in the process. Mauser can spout Thomas Sowell-like delusions but he fails to represent reality - and he certainly is not espousing the ideals of the New Testament.
The record of communism is bloody - but so is capitalism. And while Communist China (which has not actually existed since the late 1970's), Nazism, and the Soviet Union killed tens of millions - the US death toll is also staggering and in the millions as well. The fact that it is exceeded by some of the worst regimes in history seems to provide some with a modicum of comfort but the millions who have died as a result of the American Empire testify to its abiding evil.
And Mauser is wrong - there are elements to the economy that are zero-sum. Increasingly this is the case with resources and such simplistic thinking fails to take into account the long term effects of resource exploitation, population, and many other factors - not to mention the propensity of capitalism to create markets, even by force if need be. Money cannot sit idle. It must grow or die and this unfortunate law of the capitalist jungle has proven to be incredibly destructive. It is so ironic that as Mauser scores his points, racking up all his hits against Marxism and its godless system - he is actually promoting nothing less than Social Darwinism. You can't get any more anti-Christian than that. This point is further emphasized by his endorsement of von Mises who like Hayek and Rand hated Christianity and recognized that it was incompatible with the Libertarian Capitalism they endorsed. Only by modifying Christianity (which American Evangelicalism has done) can it made to conform to the dictates of capitalist Mammonism. It is another gospel.
This is the tragedy of American Evangelicalism - the blind leading the blind. He celebrates the wealth and power of the United States - glorying in his shame. He fails to understand that America's greenbacks are red, soaked in blood. Does socialism lead to poverty and tyranny? Maybe, but we know that Gilded Age capitalism led to the same - and the Christian Right has poured its energy and resources into returning the country to such a scenario. The article was to say the least a travesty.
----
*Likewise there are numerous social democracies that would be reckoned as fully socialist by Right-wing Evangelicals and Libertarians and yet in many respects an argument can be made that a more balanced distribution of wealth engenders a stronger sense of social engagement and democratic enfranchisement. And even in these systems, there is still abundant wealth and a vibrant upper class. My point is not to defend this arrangement but rather to show how misunderstood these questions are by the apologists of Capitalism and especially those within American Evangelicalism.