Some Words on Christian Socialism

Below is my column in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.

By the time this column is published, we will know the results of the 14 states voting on Super Tuesday. Given the polling so far, it looks like Bernie Sanders seems likely to continue the momentum built in early contests. I had been leaning toward Pete Buttigieg, but now I’m pretty firmly in the Sen. Warren camp. That said, the rise of Bernie has happened hand in hand with continued hand-wringing about socialism, including the version Bernie supports: democratic socialism.

The scare concepts linking democratic socialism to communism are unfortunate, albeit rather expected. The most salient difference between the two is that democratic socialists believe in that – a democracy. Communist forms of government are not democratic because the people do not get to vote those who represent them. In communist systems, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state.

In communism, there is no such thing as private property – everything is held by the state and individuals are given their basic needs from the state. Furthermore, Bernie is not advocating a wholesale government take-over of all means of production (classical socialism), but instead is arguing for the government to take over those systems best handled by that mechanism. We already do this in America, believing it makes most sense for the government to provide for a military, for a safety-net for the poor through Social Security and Medicare, and to have a hand in ensuring there is adequate public housing.

Bernie’s argument, for example, is that the current insurance-based system is an inherently inefficient way of paying for health care in our country and that Medicare for All would more effectively accomplish this work. Given the fact that our health care costs are far above any other developed countries (all of whom have some form of government provided care) and our outcomes are below other countries, I find his article persuasive.

Don’t get me wrong, I preferred Pete’s approach of Medicare for all who want it, enabling people to make the choice whether to buy into a government-run plan. Then it would be up to private industry to compete in the market with the public option. And I think Sen. Warren’s path to Medicare for All has a stronger chance of moving forward.

Regardless of who the candidate winds up being, I, for one, will not be scared by language of socialism. One of the most significant reasons is because Christian socialism is a significant part of the history of my own tradition of Anglican Christianity. This movement, particularly strong in the United Kingdom, began in the 19th century as an argument that many socialist concepts can clearly be supported based upon the text of Holy Scripture and the teachings of Jesus Christ. There was also a strong Christian socialist movement among Calvinists in France (the birthplace of the Calvinist movement) throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

In the early 20th century, the Episcopal bishop of Utah, Spencer Spalding, put it most succinctly when he wrote, “The Christian Church exists for the sole purpose of saving the human race. So far, she has failed, but I think that socialism shows her how she may succeed. It insists that men cannot be made right until the material conditions be made right. Although man cannot live by bread alone, he must have bread. Therefore, the Church must destroy a system of society which inevitably creates and perpetuates unequal and unfair conditions of life.”

Spalding goes on to argue that competition always results in unequal and unfair conditions. I would not go so far as that, as I do believe that competition has the possibility of creating significant growth and development. The problem is when that competition is wholly unfettered by the state. Because then, those with significant capital (corporations and the exceptionally wealthy) can require cruel standards of living for access to only a small part of the capital in society.

We saw our own country fight against this with the labor movements in the 20th century. Let’s be clear, the ending of child labor, the creation of the 40-hour workweek and overtime pay, and the establishment of rules for safe working conditions were all a government intrusion into the free exercise of the market. But they were intrusions that needed to happen because of the way unfettered capitalism was destroying the lives of working people.

The great early 20th-century bishop of Oxford, Charles Gore, said: “The State exists to enable its members to develop a worthy human life. A State must be judged, and should judge itself, by its tendency to generate in all its citizens a worthy type of life. … If at any state it finds that the institution of property, as it exists, is fostering luxury and exaggerated power in a few, and enslaving or hindering the many, there is nothing to prevent it rectifying what is amiss.”

I would argue that we confront exactly this sort of reality in 21st-century America. We have a booming economy and record-low unemployment, but the results of that economy are enjoyed primarily by the wealthy. Over the past 30 years, the bottom 90 percent of our population went from holding 33 percent of all wealth to just 24 percent. At the same time, the wealth share of the top 1 percent went from 30 percent to 40 percent. Unemployment is indeed low, but 80 percent of workers live paycheck to paycheck.

We can do better as a country. And Christians, following the teachings of Scripture and Jesus when it comes to caring for the poor, orphan and immigrant, must make their voice heard during this election year to demand our country do better. And rather than let people turn “socialism” into a dirty and scary word, we should ask what actions our State needs to take so that our social society is more just, equitable and fair.