In other words, this property had never been required for any communal fund. It belonged to Ananias and Sapphira. It was completely in their power. After the property was sold the money they received from the sale was also in their power. They could spend it or contribute it. If contributed, the money was a freewill, voluntary offering. It will be seen immediately that this is altogether different from a Communist’s relationship to property where there is a confiscation or expropriation of each member’s possessions, and the proceeds are distributed by a single person or a small committee. The member thereby loses his independence and becomes subservient to the whims and capriciousness of those who rule over him.
Christians Kept Legal Title to Property
It would appear, therefore, that the early Christians did keep legal title to their property but “said” it was for the benefit of the whole community.
This is precisely the conclusion reached in Dummelow’s Bible Commentary. It discusses the two passages we have just quoted and then says: “The Church of Jerusalem recognized the principle of private property. A disciple’s property really was his own, but he did not say it was his own; he treated it as if it were common property.”
Dr. Adam Clarke’s commentary also makes this significant observation concerning the Apostolic collections for the poor: “If there has been a community of goods in the Church, there could have been no ground for such (collections) ... as there could have been no such distinction as rich and poor, if everyone, on entering the Church, gave up his goods to a common stock.”
Jesus Taught Property is Individually Owned
This, then, brings us to our final comment on this subject, namely, that the Master Teacher made it very clear in one of His parables (Matthew 25:14-30) that property was not to be owned in common nor in equal quantities.
In this parable He said the members of the kingdom of God were servants who had been given various stewardships “every man according to his several ability.” One man was given a stewardship of five talents of silver and when he “traded with the same and made them other five talents,” his Lord said, “Well done!” However, another servant who had been given only one talent of silver feared he might somehow lose it, so he buried it in the earth. To this man his Lord said, “Thou wicked and slothful servant!” He then took this man’s one talent and gave it to the servant where it could be developed profitably.
Enjoy Property as a Stewardship
Two things appear very clear in this Parable of the Talents: first, that every man was to enjoy his own private property as a stewardship from God. Second, that he was responsible to the earth’s Creator for the profitable use of his property.
All of the evidence before us seems to clearly show that the early Christians did not practice Communism. They did not have their property in common. Instead, they had their problems in common. To solve their problems, each man was asked to voluntarily contribute according to his ability “as God had prospered him.” (1 Corinthians 16:2)
When carefully analyzed, this was simply free enterprise capitalism with a heart!
The student will also probably recognize that whenever modern capitalism is practiced “with a heart” it showers blessings of wealth, generosity, good will and happy living on every community it touches.
The ancient Christian order was a great idea.
* * *
251 Reprinted with permission from The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen, 1958, 2006.
Chapter 37: The Word That Can’t Be Defined
Socialism is often defined to promote a particular brand of the perfect dream. In truth, they’re all nightmares.
With the preceding historical summary to give context, what then can be the best definition for socialism? The traditional definitions include something about the government controlling parts of the economy that typically are controlled by private businesses. Outside of that, definitions of socialism are all over the map. This sampling includes both pro- and anti-socialism observations—
SOURCE: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 13th Edition
DEFINITION: “Socialism is that policy or theory which aims at securing by the action of the central democratic authority a better distribution, and in due subordination thereunto a better production of wealth than now prevails.”252
COMMENT: A central democratic authority is the trap. When the people control their government through their representatives, then they will remain free. Centralized authority to impose “better” anything means the use of force in violation of rights.
SOURCE: Alexis de Tocqueville, defender of freedom
DEFINITION: “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”253
COMMENT: As precisely stated, socialism means force.
SOURCE: Paul Hubert Casselman, Labor Dictionary, 1949
DEFINITION: “An economic theory which holds that ownership of property should be in the group and not in the individuals who make up the group. Collectivism may be partial or complete. Partial collectivism is exemplified by public ownership of schools, hospitals, recreational centers, etc., in the capitalistic system. Complete collectivism exists under communism where all wealth is owned in common.”254
COMMENT: The error here is that collectivism is not exemplified by public ownership of schools, etc. Schools, hospitals, etc., are cooperative expenses managed by freely-elected officials. In a collective society, top-down force imposes those decisions outside of the control of the people.
SOURCE: Robert V. Daniels, U.S. author and educator
DEFINITION: “I take as my general working definition of socialism, ‘any theory or practice of social control over economic activity.’ This definition is purposely vague. It embraces any degree of social control in the economy, from the U.S. Post Office to the completely nationalized economy of the USSR. It covers both state socialism and non-state (cooperatives, syndicalism, etc.). It permits democratic as well as dictatorial forms of political control.”255
COMMENT: “Social control” means top-down government control without power by the people—the loss of freedom.
SOURCE: Ludwig von Mises, pro-liberty scholar and teacher
DEFINITION: “My own definition of socialism, as a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, is in agreement with all that scientists have written on the subject. I submit that one must be historically blind not to see that this and nothing else is what has stood for Socialism for the past hundred years, and that it is in this sense that the great socialist movement was and is socialistic.”256
COMMENT: Von Mises accurately points out that any name or label describing the regulation of society is still and will always remain socialism.
SOURCE: Benjamin Tucker, publisher, proponent of socialism
DEFINITION: “First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.”257
COMMENT: Tucker cuts to the chase: Under socialism, there are no unalienable rights, no choice, and no property.
SOURCE: Roger Nash Baldwin, a founder of ACLU
DEFINITION: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal.”258
COMMENT: Baldwin echoes the major goals of all socialists. Communism does it by abrupt force—socialism does it by gradual infiltration and change. Both aim for the same goal.
SOURCE: H. G. Wells,
author and outspoken socialist
DEFINITION: “The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive ‘policies’ and ‘Plans’ of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk [shun] at the word ‘socialism,’ but what else can one call it?”259
COMMENT: H. G. Wells points out that the New Deal was the socializing of the United States—and an otherwise inattentive America embraced it with hopeful smiles.
SOURCE: Franklin Spencer Spalding, Episcopal Bishop
DEFINITION: “The Christian Church exists for the sole purpose of saving the human race. So far she has failed, but I think that Socialism shows her how she may succeed. It insists that men cannot be made right until the material conditions be made right. Although man cannot live by bread alone, he must have bread. Therefore the Church must destroy a system of society which inevitably creates and perpetuates unequal and unfair conditions of life. These unequal and unfair conditions have been created by competition. Therefore competition must cease and cooperation take its place.”260
COMMENT: Bishop Spalding sees force in everything—the church must destroy capitalism, it must destroy competition, it must save the human race. The bishop neglected to consider free choice as originally taught by Christianity, and the words of the strongest proponent of free choice among all religions, namely, Jesus Christ.
SOURCE: Frederic Bastiat, French economist and politician
DEFINITION: “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by the government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”261
COMMENT: Bastiat brilliantly gives perspective and illustration of the fifth pillar of Socialism (force). While free people choose what they want in their society, socialism deems it necessary to impose on everyone “what is good for us” by government force. The problem is and will forever be, who decides for everyone else? As Bastiat observes, the best answer is “We the People” must remain free to decide our future. We do this by way of a free representative government, not through tyrants who will dictate what best benefits themselves, their opinion, and their power base.
Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing
In short, socialism is government force to control and change society. These examples illustrate the difficulty in parading tyranny in a positive light. It takes a lot of careful work to gloss over the details of Ruler’s Law and cast it as worthy of consideration, or as a viable solution to human problems. Socialists try to get around this by inventing a good name or category or leader around which others who want change may rally. There are hundreds of these groups, but only a few have achieved widespread recognition.
* * *
252 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 13th Edition.
253 Cited in Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.
254 Paul Hubert Casselman, Labor Dictionary, Socialism, 1949.
255 Quoted in J.D. Bales, What is Socialism?
256 Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, 1951, p. 20.
257 Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ, paragraphs 11 and 12, 1888.
258 Robert C. Cottrell, Roger Nash Baldwin and the American Civil Liberties Union,
pp. 228-229.
259 H. G. Wells, The New World Order, p. 46.
260 Franklin Spencer Spalding, The Christian Socialist, November 1914.
261 Frederic Bastiat, The Law, par. L. 102 (1850 edition).
Chapter 38: Socialism Du Jour
There are more variations, brands, flavors and combinations of socialistic ideas and socialism than you can shake a stick at.
What are the major groups? This list is not all-inclusive, but presents a few of the more common forms of modern socialism. Each form embodies the same general theme: a promised utopia of peace and prosperity provided that control over social and economic choices are given to a central all-powerful authority.
BRAND: Utopian Socialism
UNIQUE FEATURE: Impossible, but delightfully hypothetical
STORY: First envisioned by Plato and then given a name by Sir Thomas More in his book, Utopia (1516 A.D.), this brand of socialism found roots in the early 1800s. It promised a perfect society brought about through the harmonious cooperation of like-minded people. Everyone shares everything happily—a garden of earthly delights with no fights, no poverty, and no crime.262
BRAND: Democratic Socialism
UNIQUE FEATURE: People vote for socialistic policies
STORY: This brand is hard to define. In general, it has deeper involvement of the masses who vote democratically for policy instead of relying on an elite class of leaders to impose it. Some see capitalism and basic property ownership (house, car) as engines of prosperity benevolently tolerated to prop up a democratic socialistic society. Others see it as a transitory mechanism, an in-between that leads from evil capitalism to righteous Marxist socialism without those nasty revolutionary wars and upheavals. Democratic socialism means voting to be impoverished and miserable rather than having it forced upon you.263
BRAND: Marxist socialism (communism)
UNIQUE FEATURE: Quickly imposed with violent uprising
STORY: It’s the culmination of an evolution. Marx envisioned capitalism reaching a breaking point at which time the working class would rise up and take over everything. These masses of laborers are managed by the State until order is restored, and then the State supposedly dissolves away so science can direct everything. Find yourself short on decaf? Plug your problem into the master planning computer. Workers are moved from one job to the other, more decaf is produced, and suddenly you have less to be fidgety about. The end goal is no property, no state, and no religion—just communism.264
BRAND: Scientific Socialism
UNIQUE FEATURE: Adjusts according to supply and demand
STORY: Similar to Marxism, this brand relies on evolution. By looking back in history at how the needs of a society expand and change, the scientific socialist strives to predict future needs. He adjusts his production and distribution to meet those needs—and then hopes he is right. If he’s wrong, millions starve to death, or barges of unused tofu go rotting on some distant loading dock, but that’s okay—the ends always justify the means, better luck next time.265
BRAND: Market Socialism
UNIQUE FEATURE: Price fixing by trial and error
STORY: This version has the state owning all resources and setting prices by trial and error. The idea is to lower prices on surpluses to get rid of the excess, and raise prices on scarce items to encourage more production to make more money and employ more workers (sounds very capitalistic). In this back and forth trial and error, a nation is eventually supposed to reach a point where everyone is producing what the country uses, everyone is employed, and their united labors happily grow the economy.266
BRAND: Fabian Socialism
UNIQUE FEATURE: Secretive, subtle, sneak up and infiltrate
STORY: Founded in London in 1884, its supporters advanced communism through gradual, easily swallowed means, not sudden revolutionary action. Socialism imposed slowly will last longer than a revolution, they said, provided it isn’t obviously anti-democracy or too bossy. The Fabians proposed minimum wage, national health care, “social justice,” and nationalization of the land, among other things. They promo
ted forced schooling and eugenics (selective breeding). Famous people embraced it wholeheartedly: George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells (for a while), Virginia Woolf, Bertrand Russell (for a while), Jawaharlal Nehru, Tony Blair, etc. It’s the same ol’ same ol’ socialism. When fully matured there would be no private property, no free choice, no liberty and personal rights.267
BRAND: Fascism
UNIQUE FEATURE: Turns family against family
STORY: “Fascism” has become a colloquialism for anything that is rash and brutal. For Italy’s Mussolini during WWII, fascism meant centering all power in him. His secret police spied on everyone to crush all opposition and dissent. Support for fascism was promoted as a patriotic duty and anyone opposed was viewed a traitor. To maintain popular support, Mussolini cultivated a state of ignorance about his activities by controlling all media, and restricting travel and association. It fomented a war-like state of crisis, convincing people of a threat they must be prepared for, and then employing many in the government to prepare and make armaments. The wealthy supported it because it protected their private properties. But once established, Italy’s fascist forces turned on the propertied classes to take from the “haves” and spread around the wealth to the “have-nots.”268
BRAND: Environmental Socialism
Unique Feature: Destroy rights to save the environment
Story: The so-named “green movement” has taken root in recent years to expand government power at the expense of individual liberties. Carbon taxes, global warming, capitalism’s supposed penchant for using too much energy, limited natural resources, cap and trade, the hole in the ozone layer, evil filament light bulbs, flatulence-prone cows—just about anything that puts humans below all things to regiment or eliminate them altogether, is today euphemistically called going green.
The Naked Socialist Page 22