Socialism: A Bad Penny

A May 2019 Gallup poll found that 43% of Americans think socialism would be a good thing in the U.S. 51% think it would be bad. Those numbers are up from 25% and 40%, respectively, in 1942, according to a Roper poll. However, it seems that most people don’t know what it is. A September 2018 poll showed that only 17% of Americans see it as government ownership of the means of production. This is widely considered as an essential element of true socialism.¹

During the last election campaign, more than one politician championed socialism for the country. It seems that many of our younger citizens have warmed to socialism in recent years. But several popes have spoken out against socialism in very strong terms. This article is an attempt to get at just why the Church has been against socialism and what various countries have discovered in pursuing this social/economic system.

What exactly is socialism? More importantly, what is Democratic Socialism, which is being peddled today? (Socialism is defined by Merriam-Webster as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” Democratic Socialism claims to be different from the traditional understanding of Socialism.)

According to Mark A. Peterson, a professor of public policy, political science, and law at UCLA, Democratic socialism is “a call for the democratically-elected to use the public sector to promote greater equality and opportunity.” Those who identify as Democratic socialists believe in giving everyone the chance to find equal economic footing, and see free or low-cost health care, tuition-free public education, and universal child care as means to that end.²

Promoting greater equality and opportunity sounds great. Free or low-cost health care, tuition-free public education and universal child care could be worthwhile. How these things are accomplished and what comes after those makes all the difference. As Peterson said, these things are only means to an end. That end — which is not spelled out — is what should cause concern.

Health Care and College Tuition

It can be argued from Catholic teaching that socialized health care would be a valuable safety net for the poor. Pope Benedict XVI taught, “It is necessary to work with greater commitment at all levels to ensure that the right to health care is rendered effective . . . to establish a real distributive justice which, on the basis of objective needs, guarantees adequate care to all.”³ And the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment and social assistance (CCC §2288).

Alas, there is a catch here. Would Catholic hospitals be forced to perform abortions, to euthanize patients, or to perform sex-change surgery? And would medical personnel be brought to court for not performing or assisting at an abortion? There was a time when there was widespread agreement on what is ethically permissible in health care. Not so today.

Also, it can be reasonably argued that we already have a safety net for medical treatment for the poor, namely Medicaid.

Another issue in the Democratic Socialism debate is that of providing free college tuition for public universities. Germany has been providing free college tuition for students since 2014 regardless of family income. As a result they pay more in taxes. As a rough comparison, the average income tax rate in Germany was 49.4% in 2016 vs. the U.S. rate of 31.7%.⁴

Examples of Democratic Socialism

On the Democratic Socialism website they pose the question that it seems has been asked of them, “Why are there no models of democratic socialism?” This is their answer:

Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the U.S., such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making.⁵

It seems that the democratic socialists see these examples as pieces of welfare that could move countries toward full socialism. But, while pieces of welfare may work in certain nations, government-mandated socialism is a far different thing.

The Example of Sweden

Socialist politicians often cite Sweden as an example of democratic socialism’s success. But that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. For the U.S. to be like Sweden, according to Swede Johan Norberg, senior fellow at the Cato Institute:

. . . It would mean, for example, more free trade and a more deregulated product market, no Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,⁶ and the abolition of occupational licensing and minimum wage laws. The United States would also have to abolish taxes on property, gifts, and inheritance. And even after the tax cut under the previous administration, America would still have to slightly reduce its corporate tax. Americans would need to reform Social Security from defined benefits to defined contributions and introduce private accounts. They would also need to adopt a comprehensive school voucher system where private schools get the same per pupil funding as public ones.⁷

Those are capitalist features of the Swedish economic system, features the U.S. doesn’t have. According to Norberg:

. . . That is the real story of the Swedish model. Laissez-faire economics turned a poor backwater into one of the richest countries on the planet. Then it experimented with socialism briefly in the 1970s and ’80s. This made the country famous, but it almost destroyed it. And learning from this disaster, the left and the right have, in relative consensus, liberalized Sweden’s economy⁸ more than other countries, even though it is still far from its classical liberal past.⁹

During Sweden’s experiment with socialism:

Talent and capital stormed out of Sweden to escape taxes and red tape. Swedish businesses moved headquarters and investments to more hospitable places. IKEA left for the Netherlands and Tetra Pak for Switzerland. Björn Borg and other sports stars fled to Monaco. The famous novelist Vilhelm Moberg, who had settled in Switzerland, complained that the Swedish government was a “monster without morality or sense of poetry.” The legendary filmmaker Ingmar Bergman left for Germany after having been falsely accused of tax evasion.¹⁰

So it seems that Sweden does indeed have something to teach us in the U.S. about economics, but it is about the benefits of capitalism with good welfare programs, not democratic socialism. In fact, we can learn further from Sweden the disastrous results of their experiment with socialism. Furthermore, pointing to other Scandinavian countries for examples of democratic socialism reaps the same dead end. Scandinavia has some very good welfare programs in other countries, but they are not socialist countries.¹¹

Alas, it looks like democratic socialism has no country to point to as exemplifying its principles successfully.

Popes on Socialism

Pope Leo XIII wrote the first Catholic social encyclical, Rerum Novarum in 1891. His concern was the condition of the working classes. He wrote:

. . . on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen’s guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. . . . it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. (Rerum novarum, n. 3)

He points out the errors of those promoting socialism as a remedy for the situation of the workers:

They hold that by . . . transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community. (n. 4)

. .  . the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. (n.11)

Leo defended the rights of the family: “the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature” (n. 13)

The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error… The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home. (n. 14)

He pointed out that bringing about financial equality, a goal often stated by socialists, is impossible:

There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such unequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition. (17)

While every Christian should want to narrow the gap between the rich and poor, bringing about equality has never proven workable.

Leo proclaims that enmity between classes must be alleviated. As Christians we wish classes to be bound in friendliness. (n. 21) Pope Leo goes on to praise labor unions, the successors to the artificers’ guilds of old. (n. 48)

Forty years after Leo’s groundbreaking encyclical, Pope Pius XI issued Quadragesimo Anno, on reconstruction of the social order. He too was strongly critical of socialism, reiterating the criticisms of Leo and pointing out that socialism violates the principle of subsidiarity:

That most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. (n. 79)

Pius raises the question as to whether a socialism without class struggle and the abolition of ownership might somehow find a common ground with the Church in order to improve the situation of the poor. Could Christians perhaps meet socialism halfway?

A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity. (n 116)

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. For, according to Christian teaching, man, endowed with a social nature, is placed on this earth so that by leading a life in society and under an authority ordained of God he may fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise and glory of his Creator; and that by faithfully fulfilling the duties of his craft or other calling he may obtain for himself temporal and at the same time eternal happiness. Socialism, on the other hand, wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone. (n. 117, 118)

Pope John Paul II

Pope St. John Paul II added to the arguments of Leo and Pius against socialism in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus.

His first criticism points out the fact that Socialism fails to understand the nature of the person, and his freedom to act as a moral agent.

. . . the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socioeconomic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. (13)

A person who is deprived of something he can call “his own,” and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community. (13)

A person lives out his social nature, not solely in the State but especially in the family, social groups, cultural groups and other smaller entities:

The social nature of man is not completely fulfilled in the State, but is realized in various intermediary groups, beginning with the family and including economic, social, political and cultural groups which stem from human nature itself and have their own autonomy, always with a view to the common good. This is what I have called the “subjectivity” of society which, together with the subjectivity of the individual, was canceled out by “Real Socialism.” (13)

In rejecting Socialism, John Paul does not completely endorse capitalism:

We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called “Real Socialism” leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization. It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development, and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development. (35)

So there should be regulations to govern capitalism, limiting unfair competition and other obstacles to justice for all.

Michael Novak’s Democratic Capitalism¹²

Noted Catholic author Michael Novak started out fully endorsing Democratic Socialism as an economic system most compatible with Christian values. As time went on, he realized that this was a big mistake. He concluded that a form of capitalism was much more suited to Christianity and wrote a pivotal book explaining his position in 1982, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.

He points out that those who criticize capitalism speak of it as embracing three things: “the market, private property and private profit.” This, he says, is an outdated understanding of capitalism. He proposes a different meaning:

The invention-based economic system made possible by laws protecting intellectual property, plus personal habits of economic initiative, enterprise, and practical wisdom, and in which the main cause of wealth is fresh ideas, ventures, and exercised know-how.¹³

He defines Democratic Capitalism as

. . . a system of three liberties: political liberty, economic liberty, and liberty in religion and conscience, in arts and in science, and in cultural expression. (For brevity’s sake, I call this third sphere of liberty moral/cultural liberty).¹⁴

His reporting of the movement from socialism to capitalism in the world is enlightening. In the 1980s the majority of communist and socialist countries were “dropping their failed economic systems and turning to markets, private property and personal enterprise,” because their systems weren’t working. “India started the tide, the Chinese saw its success, and the Soviet nations saw themselves as wrongly deprived.”¹⁵

The global turn toward capitalism began . . . in 1989 and within 25 years some two billion people had begun moving from communism and socialism toward capitalism, and thence out of poverty and into steadily advancing standards of living. Those numbers were most notable in China, India and the former Soviet Union and its captive nations.

He lamented that at the time he was writing, a billion people were still living in poverty. That is a major moral problem for persons of faith.¹⁶

Novak goes on to say that belief in an afterlife and the inevitability of death and judgment before God were seen by our founders as essential supports of virtuous behavior. And virtuous behavior is essential for a healthy economy.¹⁷ virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor . . . and this alone, that renders us invincible.” Patrick Henry, “Letter to Archibald Blair,” Jan 8 1799. In Moses Coit Tyler, Patrick Henry (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1898; reprint, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962), 409. (1891). And John Adams wrote, Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, Address to the Officers of the Massachusetts Militia, 1798.] It seems that truth has been forgotten by many of our contemporaries.

He cautions that hard-core materialism will “suck the breath out of the human spirit.”

In other words, an economy without beauty, love, human rights, respect for one another, human friendship, and strong families (the tutors of moral habits) is not likely long to be loved, or to survive, or to be worthy of human persons. Those who focus almost exclusively on human markets or even on enterprise do not wholly capture the American system . . . Ours is not a country of individualists; it is a country of joiners, country dances, church picnics, committees for every kind of purpose, a community of communities.¹⁸

Free markets are not enough for the democratic capitalism of Novak, but they are an essential part of it.¹⁹ Perhaps we might call the capitalism he proposed capitalism with a heart.

Conclusion

In summary, it appears that the promoters of democratic socialism have the praiseworthy intention of making things better for workers and the poor in general. Alas, socialism, any socialism, has shown itself to instead make things worse for everyone. And its anthropological flaws, as identified by a number of popes, make it incompatible with Christianity.