Albert Einstein once quipped that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. While Einstein may not have been considering the political realm when he said this, modern day Socialists would be wise to heed his proverb. Despite destroying millions of lives, Marx’s disciples single-mindedly insist that the problem is not in the principle, but in the application. The latest attempt is through a more moderate version that is commonly referred to as Democratic Socialism. By wedding it to the widely accepted principle of democracy, the Socialists hope to soften the blow. To this point, even in highly capitalistic countries they have been very successful hiding it in plain sight. It is therefore imperative that we recognize it and work to combat its harmful effects.
In its first go-round, Socialism was wedded to totalitarianism. Whether it be Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, or Kim’s North Korea, Socialists dictators made an offer that their people could not refuse. Millions of deaths later, Socialists knew that they must adopt a gentler and more gradual approach. This approach, still motivated by an exaggerated egalitarianism, would only slowly abolish private property and create economic parody and solidarity among citizens.
A Softer Approach?
Rather than controlling the means of production directly, the new socialists instead control the income from these private means of production, gathering it together through taxes. Men no longer get to keep the fruit of their labor, but instead are allowed to only keep some percentage of it. That percentage is completely at the discretion of the State. In a very real sense, it is the State that owns 100% of the man’s labor but gives him only a certain amount. Skipping the step of controlling the means of production this form of “Democratic Socialism” takes advantage of capitalism as a means of maximizing State income.
Once the taxes are collected, the money is then transferred from the haves to the have-nots, usually filtered through the pockets of some of the have-mores, in the form of various state sponsored welfare programs. So accustomed to this form of wealth redistribution, we do not even recognize it for what it is. The State has a right to collect taxes to cover the costs of operations like military defense, police powers and certain public utilities. What the State does not have a right to do is a form of “legalized” stealing in which it takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Stealing is still stealing whether a plumber or a governor does it. It is this type of regime that Augustine had in mind in City of God when he said:
“Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity.”
Socialism and Well-Meaning Christians
The Church has long opposed Socialism in any form precisely because it is state-sanctioned thievery. In his Encyclical on Socialism, Quod Apostolici Muneris, Pope Pius XI condemned it in these terms. “The Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. For she knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God…that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another” (QAM, 9). Later in his pontificate he spoke more directly about the evil of Socialism when he condemned it using no uncertain terms:
“We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth…no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true Socialist.”
Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 117, 120
Despite the repeated condemnations of Pius XI’s successors, many Catholics still support Socialism. Such support usually stems from a soft heart, but it also tends to reveal a soft head. Lifting up the poor while simultaneously keeping them, or even making them less self-reliant is not good for them. A handout should always be a last resort and even then only in a case of emergency. “Man does not live on bread alone” but he will tend to choke on bread, at least spiritually, that is merely given to him. Instead it is good for him to work for the bread he earns because it increases his virtue and thus makes him more free. All things being equal, a man is always better off for having worked for his bread than for having received it for nothing.
This is the why the Church also rejects Socialism as contrary to the dignity of man. Socialism in all its forms always labors under an incentive problem. By forcing income equality the productive men lose their incentive to work which causes shortages and great harm to the common good. Men become equal in misery, rather than moving towards equality in character, one of the only ways in which men can actually be equal.
What the well-meaning Catholic socialist is actually looking for is solidarity with the poor. This cannot be done on a political level but must be implemented on a personal level. The person in material need also is in need, perhaps even more so, of receiving personal love. By removing that personal element and putting everyone under the care (and control) of Big Daddy solidarity can never be achieved. Often this is what calls them to fall in love with the idea of socialism and neglecting to see how it fails in practice. Pope Paul VI cautioned Catholics against being enraptured by the ideological lure of Socialism when he remarked that “[T]oo often Christians attracted by Socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated” (Octogesima Adveniens, 31).
If they are truly wanting to help the poor, then as Catholics they already have the Church, the same Church that does “not neglect the care of the poor or omit to provide for their necessities; but, rather, drawing them to her with a mother’s embrace, and knowing that they bear the person of Christ Himself, who regards the smallest gift to the poor as a benefit conferred on Himself, holds them in great honor. She does all she can to help them; she provides homes and hospitals where they may be received, nourished, and cared for all the world over and watches over these. She is constantly pressing on the rich that most grave precept to give what remains to the poor; and she holds over their heads the divine sentence that unless they succor the needy they will be repaid by eternal torments” (Pope Pius XI, Quod Apostolici Muneris, 9). All that is good in Socialism is already in the Church without all the evil side-effects. “Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists” (Pope Pius XII, Quadragesimo Anno, 115).
