Communism: The Dream that Never Could Be

Part 1 of A Discussion of Thomas D. Simpson’s Capitalism versus Socialism Chapter 4 “Communism and Fascism”

In this chapter, Simpson turns his attention to two economic systems: communism and fascism. I am not quite sure why he put these two together into one chapter, other than he says they are both controversial.

Both communism and fascism are linked to controversial ideologies. As a consequence, both stir up strong emotions. (p. 85)

Using the four pillars, these two systems do not have that much in common.

Actually, it is communism and socialism that should be put together. Both answer the four pillars the same way: the state owns the private property and decides what is made, how it is made, and who gets it.

However, communism is wrapped in an ideological narrative that I will explain here that socialism does not have.

Fascism, on the other hand, does allow for private property. However, it is the state, or its central planning agency, that decides what is made. How to make it is left up to the private individuals. Who gets it is decided by both the state and private individuals.

Communism and fascism differ on their view of the nation state, too.

Communism has seen itself as a global movement and, thus, tends to be outwardly focused. It seeks an international alliance or comradeship of workers. In contrast, fascism is nationalistic and inwardly focused and sees the nation state as the ultimate entity. (p. 86)

In this blog, I will focus on what Simpson has to say about communism, its lack of biblical support, and its dismal record in practice.

Communism’s Ideological Narrative

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels collaborated on the Communist Manifesto, an anti-capitalism polemic naming a form of socialism called communism as the antidote.

Marx an Engels saw capitalism as made up of two distinct groups: capitalists/bourgeoisie and workers/laborers. (p. 30)

The interests of the workers were diametrically opposed to the capitalists, which would lead to an inevitable revolution when the workers would rise up against the capitalists and take control of the system.

They held that this is the eventual culmination of a capitalist system: the exploitation inherent to capitalism would lead to its end. I explained the exploitation stemming from the now debunked labor theory of value in more depth in a previous article.

The labor theory of value holds the final product’s value should be equal to the cost of the labor that went into it. Thus, when capitalists sold something for more than they paid labor, that was proof they expropriated surplus value from the workers. (p. 88)

In reality, labor is not the only resource as economics later recognized. We usually say there are four (labor, capital, natural resources, and entrepreneurship), and each needs to be paid a return.

This labor exploitation they considered inherent to capitalism worsened through the boom and bust cycle of capitalism. The unemployed people gave the capitalists more power to keep more and more surplus value for themselves. Ultimately, this will lead to overproduction since the poorly paid worker class will not be able to afford to buy much. (p. 89)

This inevitably would lead to a workers’ revolution where they would take over the means of production and abolish private property. (p. 89)

Then the next step is never really explained, it is just assumed. There would be a transition “to a classless communist utopia,” characterized by the famous quote, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” (p. 87)

The unaddressed problem with this is how to change human nature, which is self-interested. This is where the market centered system thrives; it harnesses our natural self-interest to satisfy ourselves by requiring us to supply the products and services that are wanted in order to make money.

Communism has no answer on why or how people would change to make their utopia work.

During the transition to this classless communist paradise, human nature would be fundamentally transformed from being self-focused (greed) to being focused on the greater good for the community as a whole. (p. 87)

Marx ascribed to Hegelian dialectic materialism for his worldview.

Dialectical materialism combines all of those major themes: a rejection of the non-material, a claim that economic issues drive all of human history, and the suggestion that all things are constantly evolving through the process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Through the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this became the philosophical basis of Marxism and communism. (gotquestions.org)

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is the Hegelian view that Marx applied to history.

Each social system (thesis) through history had inherent conflicts (antithesis), which led to that social system being displaced and replaced by a new one (synthesis). (p. 87)

This is how we moved from feudalism to capitalism, for example. And according to Marx the inherent conflicts in capitalism would lead to communism.

But here’s the good news! Communism had no internal contradictions so it would be the final stage. (p. 87) Except forhaving to overcome that little problem of abolishing human nature and replacing it with selflessness.

Because the problems with capitalist systems were seen to be widespread among the nations, the coming age of communism was seen to be universal, stretching across national borders…In this idyllic communist world, there would be no need for nation states and the conflicts that they produced would finally come to an end. (p. 89)

What Does the Bible Say About Communism?

Some think that the Bible is compatible with socialism because of a misunderstanding of some passages in Acts.

Chapters 2 and 4 of Acts both have statements that sound like they are calling for a commune-style of life. In fact, given Marx was raised in the Lutheran church, it may have inspired his famous quote about those who have means giving to those who have need. (p. 90)

Acts 4:34–35 (ESV) There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

However, as was discussed in the blog above, this sharing is a voluntary, individual decision. The state is not taxing them and redistributing it as it would in a socialist system.

Simpson notes that Engel’s himself knew the Bible did not support communism/socialism, quoting him saying, “If some few passages of the Bible may be favorable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, opposed to it.” (p. 90)

In fact, communism is anti-religious; it holds itself as atheistic. Marx famously characterized religion as the “opium of the people.” (p. 90)

By putting people’s hopes for a better life in some future afterlife, they will tolerate the unfairness of capitalism and not rise up in revolt. As such, Marx wanted to eradicate religion.

Loyal communists needed to trust the ideological claims that utopia — the promised land — was just around the corner and there would be no need for religion…Permitting the practice of religion would compromise the full commitment needed for the communist revolution to be fully successful. (p. 91)

However, even with this anti-religious nature of communism, Simpson notes the rise since the 1970s of liberation theology, which embraces Marxist concepts, that was developed by Latin American Catholic priests. (p. 91)

Capitalism is seen to be an evil and sinful system. It needs to be overthrown — even by violence — if it cannot be overthrown by other means. Particularly, capitalism impoverishes the masses and the call on the Christian is to confront this injustice. (p. 91)

It is not biblically based because in libeartion theology sin is not an individual issue. It comes from the system itself.

Though the system targets capitalism as the problem, Simpson notes the countries that gave rise to liberation theology were corrupted forms of capitalism at best, where “the property was obtained through corrupt practices…protected by the coercive power of the state.” (p. 92)

Communism’s Record

It’s not good! Communist systems are one-party systems because by definition the state is working for “the people” so there is no other group in need of representation. (p. 94)

“The people” becomes an abstraction and takes precedence over the rights and well-being of any individual. Whatever the state decides is more important than the well-being of any single individual…(p. 95)

Personal freedom is a casualty of the state. Those few who do not want to comply are sent to “retraining camps (gulags)” where they either see the errors of their ways and conform or stay in the camps until they die. (p. 95) Utopia is not looking that good after all.

Viewed in this light, it may not come as a surprise that perhaps as many as 100 million people have died at the hands of communist leaders over the past century. Individual human rights are greatly subordinate to the much more dominant cause of the movement. (p. 96)

Aside from the gulags, many of the deaths came from famine. Communism suffers from the same problems as socialism, since it is a type of socialism, including lack of incentives and innovation.

Communist systems replace the Invisible Hand — coordination of production through prices and the pursuit of self-interest — with cumbersome bureaucratic central direction. Notably, agricultural production has been especially paltry when collectivist farming has been imposed, often leading to the need for massive imports of food from prosperous market-based economies to avoid widespread hunger. (p. 92)

The Soviet Union was the first communist nation with the revolution in 1917, and other Marxist nations have included China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and Laos. Though nominally still communist, China and Vietnam have both adopted various market principles and private property. (p. 92)

In addition to squashing individual rights and producing a low standard of living, communist nations are also bad for the environment.

Communist nations have amassed the worst records of environmental degradation…It’s especially ironic that communist systems have such poor environmental records because critics of capitalist (market-based) systems argue that such capitalist systems inherently cause more environmental damage. (p. 93–94)

Conclusion

Communism — a system based on bad economic theory and a false view of human nature — has not had a good record in the real world. Yet its appeal to fight injustice is persuasive because it is easy enough to find examples of injustice in this fallen world.

Still, its solution is a collectivist one that is not supported by the Bible, which is based on the individual developing his relationship with God.

Next blog we examine fascism.

Reference: Simpson, Thomas. D., 2020. “Communism and Fascism,” Chapter 4 of Capitalism versus Socialism, Thomasdsimpson.