Socialism schmocialism

Thanks to Joe the Plumber, we all know that Barack Obama wants to "share the wealth." Soon after the story broke, Senator McCain and a variety of pundits began throwing the world "socialism" around. I, like most Americans, had a gut reaction to the word. We don't like the idea of socialism or of any large government interference in our lives. After all, we've seen what socialism can do.

We remember Nazis chasing Indiana Jones through the desert. They didn't care about the Ark of the Covenant or its archaeological significance; they just wanted to use it to control the world. Or what about the super-human boxer, Ivan Drago, from Rocky IV? Another product of socialism. America's supposed to be about freedom. We don't like big government, we don't like people telling us what to do, and we always win because we've got more heart than the bad guys. We have a history of throwing taxed tea into Boston Harbor. We secretly boo Robin Hood when he steals from the rich and gives to the poor. And we'd rather smoke marijuana on the roof of the White House than pay our taxes.

But not so fast. I've yet to hear a senior citizen complain about the Social Security check or Medicare they receive. (Yes, I recognize that people pay into these systems. However, it's not a dollar-for-dollar payback and the money they are actually receiving comes from current workers.) I also didn't hear too many complaints about the $600-$1200 stimulous checks we received last year. I heard some folks making fun of the idea, but I'm pretty sure they still cashed their check. And, recently, when the federal government decided to cut a check for $700 billion to help the banking industry, I didn't see any Wall Street executives panning that idea. Maybe they complained about it while they were relieving stress at the spa.

All I'm saying is that we tend to look the other way when the redistribution of wealth benefits us. That's just human nature. If we were really the principled, freedom-seeking, give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death, old-school Americans we say we are, Ron Paul would now be winning the presidential election. Instead, we have two candidates who are both promising to give us stuff. And we like it that way.

I'm not suggesting that either presidential candidate is really interested in widespread socialism. I think a lot of the talk is just fear mongering. However, I would like to know Is the redistribution of wealth always wrong? I just gave several examples of where most people don't seem to mind receiving cash and prizes from the government, but that doesn't mean it's right. And, to be fair, it doesn't mean it's wrong either.

In the Old Testament, God had some funny economic policies. He instructed Israel, the people He had chosen to be set apart from the other nations of the world, to do something incredibly radical. Every fiftieth year, they were supposed to have a Year of Jubilee. On this special year, they were to return all property to its original owner. Also all outstanding debts were to be forgiven and any slave, who had become so because of a debt, would be released. In other words, they were supposed to reset the game board.

In an agricultural society like Israel's, land was wealth. God was instituting a system that would make sure the gap between the richest and the poorest never became so great that it would be oppressive.

Could you imagine if this were done today? Not many of us are farmers, but could you imagine waking one morning to find out that all of your debt were wiped clean? No more mortgage, car payment or credit card bill. You would no longer be a slave to the bank. Or what about the poorest of the poor? Imagine a homeless man suddenly finding out he owned stock in GE, something his great-great-grandfather had bought many years before. The game would be reset.

Why does the game need to be reset? After the Great Depression, Marriner S. Eccles, who had served as the Federal Reserve Chairmen under FDR made the following statement: "[A]s in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped. That is what happened to us in the twenties."

It's dangerous for everyone if too few people have most of the money in a society. As of 2005, the wealthiest 1% of Americans controlled 34.3% of the wealth in the U.S., more than the bottom 90% combined. On top of that, in 1990, American CEOs earned 107 times the average employee; in 2004, it was 411 times as much. Numbers like these have not existed since... well, just before the Great Depression. Greed is not always good.

I'm not suggesting that we try to live by a code of Jubilee. Even Israel never actually obeyed God in this area, though I wonder what would have happened if they did. I believe that nothing as simple as the idea that "hard work = prosperity" could be true all the time. I think, in principle, it's generally true. And, yes, this country has a lot of opportunities, but we don't all start at the same place, nor do we all have the same circumstances. Beyond that, I know lots of hard-working folks who can barely make ends meet. What I am suggesting is that at the core of the Jubilee ethic is love for our neighbor. And at some point, it's just more fair to reset the game than to keep playing.

Maybe all is not fair in love, war and capitalism: "Take no interest from [your brother] or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit" (Leviticus 25:36-37, ESV).


Sources:

"America's growing economic divide - resources for Journalists, Teachers, Policymakers, Citizens." Available online.
(http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm)

Marriner C. Eccles, Beckoning Frontiers. Quotation available online.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression)