Good grief. Some people cannot discuss anything without injecting religion into. Let me preface this by saying that I do not agree with socialism simply because on a large scale it just doesn't work. But those who try to make socialism versus capitalism into some quasi religious struggle are very much off the mark. I know it's tempting. Communist countries (socialism with dictatorship), made atheism a centerpiece of their dogma. But prominent anarcho capitalist Ayn Rand was a vehement atheist who hated not just socialism but the idea of charity itself declaring that greed itself is good.
But back to religion, since some feel the need to frame the debate that way. You see elements of socialism, the idea that goods should be distributed as people have need as opposed to gathered as people have ability, in the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament in was compulsive, as in through force of law. (The law of Moses). Rich landowners were compelled by the law of Moses not to completely clear their crops so that poor Israelis and even immigrants could glean from their fields. Jesus' own disciples put this into practice by picking some grain from land owned by someone else and eating it. The only criticism levied against them was that they did it on Sabbath. Also debts were discharged every 7 years. And you weren't allowed not to lend to someone in need in the 7th year just because you knew the debt would be cancelled! What is that but "redistribution of wealth?" In the New Testament, the socialism was completely voluntary but far more extensive. Believers in Jerusalem often sold all of their possessions, gave the proceeds to the disciples, and those proceeds were divided "each according to his ability."
Bible references:
Socialism is not based on covetousness. It's based on false idealism. The idealism is that those who have should help those who have not. And even in the Old Testament you see elements of redistribution of wealth from the year of Jubilee where debts were wiped out or the gleaning system where wealthy farmers were required not to harvest every bit of grain possible so that the poor could pick up food for free. When Jesus' disciples walked through a field that someone else owned and picked an ate grain, that was a form of socialism. Socialism ultimately doesn't work as a basis for an economy. But to put religious significance on it as you are is borderline blasphemous.
I do not agree with socialism because it is a failed economic policy. But the early Christian church was pure voluntary socialism. The idea behind socialism, everyman according to his need, comes straight from the book of Acts. When the disciples picked and ate grain in a field that was owned by someone else that was a form of socialism straight from the law of Moses. The year of Jubilee, where debts were wiped out, was a form of redistribution of wealth. Socialism is not based on greed. Socialism is based on idealism. Moses telling wealthy planters "Don't reap all your grain but leave some for the poor" was not based on greed.
Leviticus 23:22 "'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.'"
Acts 4:32-35 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Deuteronomy 15:1 "At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts.
Now, is socialism on a national scale a good idea? Nope. Is forced socialism a good idea at all? Nope. The early church was far more generous to each other when they were sharing out of love in their hearts instead of doing it out of compulsion. Nothing should ultimately be by compulsion. But to call a system that was in ancient Israel "sinful" is just laughable.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us