America’s Faux Socialists Know Not What They Claim to Be

So-called democratic socialists have become all the rage this year, as they captured the New York mayorship, dethroned incumbent liberal (“progressive”) congressmen, and even drove a self-described progressive Democratic congressman from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Members of the Democratic Socialists of America show far more energy and fervor than the usual apparatchiks who traditionally dominate Democratic Party affairs.

Alas, their prescriptions aren’t new. Rather, they offer standard “leftish” economic nostrums. The only good news is that most of these “socialists” really aren’t socialists. At least in any normal sense of the term.

Start with Bernie Sanders. He had a genuine radical past, serving as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party in 1980 (a Trotskyite enterprise whose presidential candidate won all of 75 votes in Vermont that year) and spending his honeymoon taking a boat ride on the Volga River while visiting the Soviet Union. These days he appears, as a millionaire who owns three homes, to have cheerfully accommodated capitalism. His political program basically would leave the rich oppressors undisturbed so long as he gets to rake off a chunk of their earnings to redistribute.

So it is with most DSA candidates. Or at least, that is what they say. They typically push Medicare for all, demonize billionaires, promote higher taxes and social spending, etc. One can argue against such policies, which, alas, aren’t likely to well serve the American people—as economist Milton Friedman once said, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” (TANSTAFL!) However, this program is well within the normal political discourse of most Western democracies. There is coercion, since you must pay your taxes, or face confiscation and even imprisonment. Nevertheless, no one of note is advocating the wholesale federal takeover of private property, including businesses and other enterprises.

Of course, these issues are mostly prudential, not theological. Notably, Christian scripture does not prescribe any economic system. The “socialism” evident among the New Testament community, including donating and sharing property, was voluntary. “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need,” we are told. (Acts 2:44–45) Neither the Jewish religious authorities nor the Roman imperial government were involved.

In his letter to the Corinthian church the Apostle Paul lays on a tough guilt trip should his correspondents fall short in aiding members of the Jerusalem church, telling them that “I am sending the brothers in order that our boasting about you in this matter should not prove hollow.” (2 Corinthians 9:3) However, he explicitly refuses to command them to give, instead testing “the sincerity of” their love. (2 Corinthians 8:8) Nor does he suggest that, if they fall short, the local public administration should step in and deliver the necessary funds.

As for current issues, God says nothing about, say, further socializing the health care market. A good society should care for those in need. But how? God leaves us to work that out. It is not enough to wish people well and walk away, according to Jesus’ brother James. (James 2:14–17) However, it also is not enough to advocate whatever fits our policy predilections if it doesn’t meet the need. For instance, to provide better health care it would be best to liberalize a service already under manifold governments’ (state and local as well as national!) control and place it under greater patients’ control.

Unfortunately, America’s professed “socialists” are inadvertently rehabilitating traditional socialism when they misuse that label. Younger Americans who were not alive when history delivered its judgment on the Soviet Union need to understand what real socialism is and why we are blessed that it is not on America’s policy agenda. Clearly inconsistent with Christianity is the Marxist-Leninist variant that characterized the death states of the 20^th Century. Most notably the Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China, Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia), and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were serious about socialism and equally serious about forcing people to worship the state and its rulers as if they were gods. The result was mass impoverishment, degradation, and death. Worthwhile references include RJ Rummel’s Death by Government and The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, among many others.

Alas, any other system that sought to transfer most productive social assets to government also required systemic and sustained repression, almost always carried out with great brutality and cruelty. Go down the list—Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, the potpourri of Eastern European “satellites” of the Soviet Union, and assorted, usually short-lived, Third World socialist dictatorships. None respected personal autonomy, dignity, or liberty. None recognized individuals’ reliance on conscience, search for transcendent meaning, or commitment to God. None avoided the temptations and abuses of untrammeled, unaccountable, and especially absolute power.

Most American “democratic socialists” appear to be hyper-liberals/progressives. I don’t agree with them, but they are free to peddle their dubious political elixirs. However, they should come up with a different name for their movement. If they really are socialists, they should own up to what they are proposing. Applying the traditional principles of truth-in-advertising requires no less.