When discussing politics, there are two important things to remember: 1. This is not Christ's Kingdom. 2. This absolutely is Christ's world.
The importance of this not being Christ's Kingdom cannot be overstated. When He was unjustly tried, Jesus had this to say: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (John 18:36). This gives us, as Christians, a little breathing room when it comes to this world's affairs. We are not under the delusion that there is some kind of utopia we can build here, and we know that until Christ returns, we will not see a perfect world. Economies will inevitably fluctuate between prosperity and desolation, and "...you have the poor with you always..." (Matthew 26:11).
On the flip side, Jesus tells us "...All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18). And of course, we are taught to pray for God's will to be done "...on Earth as it is in Heaven" (Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2). If these two statements (and more) are true, then even though Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, this world is still subject to God and His will. Deviation from this is called sin, and will have negative consequences in this world, as well as result in judgement in the next. Therefore, as Christians, and ambassadors of God, we should still call for justice, doing whatever is in our power to create a fair and Godly society (but not panicking when, in God's wisdom, He allows the wicked to temporarily flourish).
The best picture of this is God's interactions with the Pharaoh. Romans 13 tells us quite clearly that God raises up all authorities, not only the good ones, but even the bad. That would include the tyrannical Roman leaders whom Paul lived under when he wrote Romans 13, and, yes, Pharaoh. In fact, this same Paul had already written "For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”" (Romans 9:17, cf. Exodus 9:16). Yet, at the time of the Exodus, God Himself said to Moses "But I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not even by a mighty hand." (Exodus 3:19).
In this scenario, God had His will, and this was absolutely going to be fulfilled. Even Pharaoh's resistance factored into this, and in fact, it became the very way in which God glorified His name. Moses was commanded to speak against Pharaoh in the name of God, rebuking his evil, even though his evil would ultimately lead to the glory of God. As Christians, we are not in the place of Moses, being given direct command by God to rebuke a specific leader, but nevertheless, we should continue to speak against evil for the glory of the Good Lord.
In the modern day, corruption runs rampant across the entire world, made all the worse by the fact Western politicians seem to be working together, each trying to outdo themselves in evil. One of the biggest discussions of our day is Capitalism vs. Socialism, with the worst part of this debate being that we are currently operating with a toxic milkshake of both. Proponents of both systems argue that the other is unfair, and make various moral charges against each other, even, in some cases, arguing that Jesus Himself would be actively in favor of them if He came today.
As previously stated, Christ wasn't actually over-active in politics. In fact, this is one of the main illusions He shattered about who the Messiah would be. The Jews of His day were eagerly awaiting a conquering warlord who would throw off the shackles of their Roman oppressors, returning Israel to its former glory. Yet, as Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, He instead declared "...Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:21). Thus, it is blatantly wrong to suggest Jesus would be a hardcore Capitalist, or a raging Socialist.
Nevertheless, we can use what the Bible does tell us to evaluate both systems. The Bible contains a lot of information about how we should live our lives. It contains certain moral absolutes, telling us how we must live, lest we displease God and store up His wrath (which, of course, Jesus took for believers on the cross). It also contains advice on how we should live, which in some cases overlaps with moral law, but also tells us how God has set up the world, allowing certain behaviors to yield certain rewards. Finally, it tells us about the nature of man, which shows us how people will typically behave. By compiling this information, we can evaluate economic systems and figure out how pleasing they are to God, and whether we should advocate for them, or speak against them.
When it comes to Capitalism and Socialism, the assessment is fairly easy to make. Capitalism is by no means the perfect system, and it does have flaws, as will all systems be until Christ sits on His Earthly throne. But Socialism is, at best, unwise, and is frankly oppressive in many unacceptable ways. This should not be surprising, given that it was made up by a man who believed religion, which would include Christianity, is "the opiate of the masses". Before we assess each philosophy, it's a good idea to define what they actually are, so let us first do that. Then, using scripture, we will assess which is the best system for our world today.
What is Capitalism?
Capitalism is an inherently freedom-based philosophy, characterised by the free trade of goods and services. Property is distributed willingly, and either privately or corporately owned. Government intervention is minimal, ideally stepping in only to prevent shady and unfair practices, and taxes are both low and fair, covering only the areas where the private sector would be inadequate (e.g. the police and military).
Capitalism is primarily based on the idea that humans are inherently self-interested, which of course includes the humans who would seek to run the government. Without commenting on a human being's inherent worth or dignity, it recognises that human beings are not equal in every respect, but rather, we all have our individual strengths and weaknesses. Much like in a race, some people are "faster", and it is absolutely ok for the faster people to cross the finish line first. As long as we are equal at the starting line, everything is fair game.
Aside from the inequality of skill and effort, Capitalism further recognises that without putting skills and effort to use, even the limited resources we do have will not be well used. Following some very harsh and difficult times in Jamestown, Virginia, John Smith famously said "You must obey this now for a law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled). For the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers." Though recognising disability as a valid exception, Smith understood the value of work, as well as how dangerous it is when the few support the many. Capitalism is based on that same philosophy.
What is Socialism?
Socialism is a philosophy in which property is owned by the state, rather than individuals and corporations, and so society shares in these things. This belief was primarily championed by Karl Marx, an atheistic philosopher who believed economics are the driving factor behind human history. Marx divided humanity into two classes: The bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are effectively rich and privileged task masters, exploiting others for their own gain, whereas the proletariat, the working class, are forced to sacrifice even their very dignity in order to eat the crumbs falling from the tables of the rich. Furthermore, Marx believed religion was "the opiate of the masses", being invented specifically to keep the proletariat under the thumb of the bourgeoisie.
Wisdom
Scripture tells us "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs 1:7) and "The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good." (Psalm 14:1). Because of this, even the best economic systems are doomed to fail whenever God is removed. Capitalism, in principle, is a good system, as is proven by the simple fact that it works. Where Capitalism goes, prosperity and innovation follow. Unless someone has printed it off for you, you are currently reading this article on a device that was specifically invented because its inventor wanted your money, but you can't sell what doesn't exist. Furthermore, if your prices are higher than your competitor, or your product/service is of a lower quality, your customers are going to your competitor. This prompts competing businesses to improve quality and decrease prices, benefiting the consumer.
But even Capitalism, without God, will inevitably have its setbacks. First, where competition is absent, there is less motive to be fair to the customer. Perhaps the government will still step in to regulate particularly shady practices, such as using sawdust to quiet an obviously damaged engine in a vehicle in order to sell it for more, but what about matters of convenience? Take YouTube as the obvious example. YouTube is notorious for mistreating its content creators, which is bad enough, but now, even your average viewer is being pressured to purchase YouTube Premium in order to "watch videos uninterrupted". This would be fine, but for one issue: Ads now literally interrupt videos. At random points during videos, ads show up which, in some cases, leads to you watching ads for almost as long as the video itself is. There's no reason the government should stop this, but it's not especially Godly to inconvenience customers just to annoy them to the point where they pay you to stop.
Another problem with Capitalism without God is that without Him, ethics change. Look no further than the simple advertising mantra "sex sells". It's true. You can appeal to consumers by advertising products which have, by nature, nothing to do with sex, simply by appealing to their lusts. Furthermore, maybe the product does have something to do with sex. Contraception, sex toys, porn, these are huge markets. Even prostitution can thrive in an economy without God, of course assuming the prevailing government doesn't also outlaw it.
There are many other ways Capitalism can fail when God is removed. But with due attention paid to God, Capitalism is a far more successful system. Socialism, by contrast, is inherently atheistic. Given that Marx based his economic philosophy on his rejection of God, it should be no surprise that it is riddled with errors in wisdom, morality, and human nature. It's one thing for a system to not be specifically Theistic, it's another thing entirely to start with that error.
The inevitable result is that Socialism always fails. Everywhere it goes, it brings destruction, and even death, turning even wealthy nations into horrible places to live. Venezuela, for example, now has a black market for powdered milk. Even if the only thing we know about God is that He is love (1 John 4:8), it's hard to imagine He would look favorably upon such a system.
With the fear of God being the beginning of wisdom, the second step comes in knowing not only that He is the Creator, but also how He created. In Proverbs 3:19-23, we read "The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding He established the heavens; By His knowledge the depths were broken up, And clouds drop down the dew. My son, let them not depart from your eyes— Keep sound wisdom and discretion; So they will be life to your soul And grace to your neck. Then you will walk safely in your way, And your foot will not stumble."
From this, and other scriptures, we see that God has effectively built the world on a system of cause and effect. Action X will have consequence Y. The book of Proverbs in particular is filled with this concept, giving numerous examples. This book contains sets of principles which, when applied, will yield a likely (though not certain) result. Take, for example, Proverbs 6:6-11: "Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, Which, having no captain, Overseer or ruler, Provides her supplies in the summer, And gathers her food in the harvest. How long will you slumber, O sluggard? When will you rise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to sleep— So shall your poverty come on you like a prowler, And your need like an armed man."
This proverb uses the harvester ant as an illustration of how diligent work typically leads to prosperity, whereas sloth leads to the failure to fulfill even one's own basic needs. The ant, without being told, stores up enough food to sustain itself, whereas the foolish man comes to ruin by resting too much. Of course, it is not always the case that your diligence will lead to prosperity. Just as a lazy man's need may come upon him "like an armed man", wealth obtained by diligence may be stolen by... an armed man. Indeed, this is the only way in which Socialism can be sustained. A bunch of armed men must use their power to subject unwilling citizens to hand over their hard earned wealth, which of course results in them working less hard to build wealth which will inevitably be stolen. The result? There's less to steal next time around. As Margaret Thatcher once quipped, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Socialism is also based on the idea that one person's gain is another person's loss. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Yet, ironically, it is his system that allows for this more than Capitalism. It overlooks one critical fact: Growth. A common analogy here is Bill has two cows, Ben has no cows. Under Socialism, the government takes a cow from Bill and gives it to Ben. Under Capitalism, Bill sells a cow, buys a bull, and breeds the cows to make more cows. Now you have an increasing supply of cows and milk.
Let's stick with the cow analogy. Biblically speaking, "...we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:7). This means no one comes into the world with two cows. First, while we're jumping ahead of ourselves, this means no one comes into the world with the right to cows either. In fact, ultimately, it is God who owns everything under Heaven (Job 41:11). Thus, all theft is theft from God. If Bill owns two cows, Bill owns two cows, and to take one by force, even for the noble motive of prospering Ben, is a sin.
But on top of this, under a Capitalist system, nothing is stopping Ben from increasing his own wealth, even using Bill's cows to do so. With his business increasing, Bill can give Ben a job for a fair wage. Or maybe Bill can supply Ben with milk, or beef, and Ben can start a food business of some kind. Maybe Ben can buy cows from Bill. Maybe Bill can buy a field and rent or buy Bill's cows to plough it, planting crops, which he then sells to Ben and others. Ben may even be able to invent something useful. Bill's gain therefore becomes Ben's gain, rather than, as Marx erroneously believed, Bill's gain being Ben's loss.
You see, then, how wisdom alone, both from a theological, and even a practical standpoint, compels us to accept Capitalism as the superior model. Capitalism is beneficial to almost all parties, including the poor. In fact, the irony is, while Socialists in the West complain about the 1%, globally speaking, they are the 1%! They use their expensive smartphones to complain about the fact they have student loans to pay back, but how does such a first world problem stack up against a child in a third world country who doesn't even know the luxury of shoes? The success of Capitalism is self evident. Only in a Capitalist nation can the poor consider luxuries that were invented in their lifetime to be necessary. People flee Socialism on makeshift rafts.
The nature of man
An extra element of wisdom is knowing not only how the world works, but also how humans work. A particular key question is are human beings inherently good or evil? In the eyes of Karl Marx, the answer is actually inherently good. It is private property that produced greed, and therefore erected a wall between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and if that private property was removed, human beings would naturally cooperate with each other, valuing one another and becoming progressively less selfish. Capitalism, of course, is based on the opposite assumption, recognising that human beings are inherently self interested, yet using this self interest to mutually prosper as many people as possible.
Biblically speaking, the human race is a fallen one. During His ministry, Jesus didn't even put much effort into proving this, He simply took it for granted. Look what He says when telling us to be persistent in prayer: "Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!" (Matthew 7:9-11).
This statement tells us a lot more than what it says. Not that we should ever read between the lines when it comes to scripture, but it is loaded with various necessary assumptions, beginning with man's sinful nature. Ever since Adam's sin, he and his offspring have been acting contrary to the will of God. This, by definition, is evil. Yet, this does not mean we are totally evil. The family bond is a strong one, so much so that parents, though they typically gain nothing from their children, will give to their children, even their very lives.
However, because we are evil, that care may not extend far beyond our own family unit. Note Jesus' words in the sermon on the mount: "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?" (Matthew 5:46-47). Why is He saying this? Because although the heathens did good to each other, they weren't especially friendly beyond that. They didn't think "hey, that Samaritan over there needs help, I'll help him". They thought "forget that guy, I'm looking out for number 1."
The unfortunate fact is that our sinful nature, in some cases, makes us so self interested that even our own families do not matter to us as much as ourselves. We may look after our families begrudgingly, we may even fight behind closed doors. How, then, can Socialism possibly work when it is so horrifically ignorant about sin nature? If it so incorrectly identifies the problem, how can it begin to present a solution? Capitalism, by contrast, identifies the problem, and seeks to solve it.
Morality
So far, we've seen why Capitalism dominates from a mostly practical standpoint, whereas Socialism, being the abysmal failure that it is, should not exist. But even if it turned out to be the absolute best economic system for human flourishing, there are other reasons Socialism should not exist.
The first and most obvious moral failure of Socialism is atheism. In fact, without faith in God, it is literally impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). You could do as much good as Christ Himself, yet your one sin is you don't have faith in God, and you will still be condemned. Of course, no Christian advocate of Socialism rejects God, but Socialism is inherently atheistic. If nothing else, it rejects His word in several more ways than just the denial of His existence. Thus, even if Socialists are not all outright atheists, they are guilty of denying God.
One of those ways is to deny property rights, which the Bible does not do. In fact, in order for theft to be a sin, someone must own something. That's what theft is: The dishonest appropriation of another's property with intent to permanently deprive. If no one has property, no one can steal. In fact, the Socialist must acknowledge this, as in order to believe the gain of the bourgeoisie is the loss of the proletariat, they must believe the bourgeoisie have dishonestly appropriated that which legitimately belongs to the proletariat.
This comes with an obvious flip side in that there must be a legitimate way to obtain property, which it then becomes immoral to dishonestly appropriate from you. This begins in Genesis, where God gives man the famous dominion mandate: "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”" (Genesis 1:27-28). This applies not only to Adam and Eve, but to their descendants after them.
Of course, it gets complicated after that. We have to factor in how wealth is justly divided between us. God determines where and when nations will rise (Acts 17:26), and we are bound by the laws of whatever nation we happen to live in (Romans 13:1-7), but the simplest way to put it is you obtain wealth according to the laws of your nation. If you qualify for a paying job, apply. If you want something, trade for it. You know how your system works, and so as long as you can morally make use of it, do so. Of course, that qualification "morally" is necessary. Throughout time and space, there are, and have been, some very dishonest ways to legally obtain property. This should be utterly condemned, and those laws should swiftly change, assuming they have not already, and a Christian living in those places better not ever make use of them.
Rather than getting rid of bad laws, Socialism actually intends to add a few. One particularly common policy is the universal basic income (UBI). The UBI is a system in which everyone makes a certain amount of money by default. The theory behind this is that while the rich would simply store their UBI under their mattress, the poor would go out and spend it, stimulating the economy.
There are three main moral problems with this. First, it requires more theft in order to sustain. Wealth can grow, but not out of nothing. It grows when it is produced. Thus, you can either print more money, making money worth less until it is worthless, or you can... tax everyone. And obviously, you're not going to tax the UBI to produce the UBI, so you'd be taxing the ever-decreasing wages earned on top of it.
Now, to be clear, I'm not of the opinion that taxation is theft. Taxation, according to Romans 13, serves a very valuable purpose. That purpose, however, is not interference in economics, but rather maintaining peace in the realm. In effect, you are paying for services you cannot help but use. It is, therefore, entirely honest for the government to demand a portion of your income in order to fund such a task. Nevertheless, over-taxation is the dishonest appropriation of another's property with intent to permanently deprive. Therefore, taxation in order to fund a UBI is theft.
But furthermore, such a policy is doomed to fail simply because it deserves to. If you earn a certain amount for doing nothing at all, you can do nothing at all and, at least in theory, continue to eat. Of course, in the long run, it wouldn't work like that. Think of it this way: The current UBI is £0. Suppose it suddenly becomes £100 a week. Well, £100 a week becomes the new £0, because it's the lowest amount you can possibly "earn".
But because you're not actually earning it, scripture says you shouldn't have it. Remember John Smith's words? "You must obey this now for a law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled). For the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers." These are close to Paul's words in 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat." Put simply, wealth, including that which one uses to sustain his very life, is supposed to directly correspond with the amount of effort he puts into it. If you won't work, you don't get to feed yourself. If you work extra hard, the beautiful thing is God will bless you all the more if you use that to feed others.
Economics and the Gospel
I could literally write a book on the Biblical implications of Capitalism and Socialism, but I think I have demonstrated beyond reasonable dispute that Capitalism is one of, if not the best economic system human beings have ever invented. Socialism, by contrast, is fatally flawed, not to mention morally repugnant.
But I do not write this article with intent to turn you into a Capitalist, nor to help you defend Capitalism if you already were. Rather, I contend that a correct understanding of economics reveals that the Bible is actually true, making accurate assessments that are still relevant to us today as they were 2,000 years ago. The success of Capitalism is due entirely to the fact that it mirrors scripture in a number of ways, correctly assessing the nature of man, the way of the world, and, to some degree, finding morally admirable ways to navigate both. Socialism, by contrast, is a morally detestable failure, fueled by the very sins it claims to oppose.
Yet, we keep trying it. We take Capitalist societies that aren't broken, and try to "fix" them with Socialism. Time and time again, Socialist policies fail to produce flourishing human societies, yet by the greed of man, it continues.
This highlights our sin and the need for The Savior, as well as prompts us to look for a better Kingdom. The only utopia that can ever exist is the Kingdom of Heaven, and we see this through economics. Thus, Socialism can be a curse that brings a blessing. As God used Pharaoh to show His power, so also can He use Socialist tyrants. Capitalism, by contrast, shows the benefits of obeying His word. Even atheists can thrive under a Capitalist system, showing the scriptures true. Thus, while we may pray Socialism perishes, we can make use of it to expose the lies of the devil, and tell a starving world "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!" (Psalm 34:8).