Why Communism Doesn’t Work - A Christian Perspective
In studying the life of Karl Marx, one will discover that as a young man he was a Christian. He had a sincere love of God. He wrote:
Union with Christ bestows inner exaltation, consolation in suffering, calm assurance, and a heart which is open to love of mankind, to all that is noble, to all that is great, not out of ambition, not through the desire of fame, but only because of Christ.
Yet, after several years of study in university, Marx declared himself an atheist. In the preface to his doctoral dissertation, he quoted David Hume, ‘In simple words, I hate the pack of gods.’
As a young Christian, he would surely have come across the first few chapters of the book of Acts, in which the early Church had all things in common. I believe this to be the origin of the concepts of Communism, or at least an early source of its inspiration from Marx’s youth.
It was a beautiful moment in Christianity, an amazing display of people’s willingness to unselfishly give of their possessions into a community, meeting one another’s needs. But, could this cultural moment of utopia come about in the context of a world-view in which God didn’t exist, in which everything was materialistic?
There is a huge difference between what was seen in the book of Acts, contrasted with the ideas of Communism. And yet, there are similarities. In both world-views, people’s individual wealth is being distributed to the masses. But here is the key difference: in the book of Acts, God is motivating the people to give to others, whereas, in Communism, the Government is directing people to give. In other words, in Christianity, God is the motivator, whereas in Communism, man is the driving force.
In basic terms, the two ‘systems’ are posing the question, ‘Who is going to be in charge of our world-view, God or man?’
Communism functions within a world-view of atheism, Christianity functions within the worldview that God is above all. Communism is focused only on the material world, Christianity believes in the existence of the supernatural (above nature) realm, where God exists.
When God is dismissed from a world-view, only man is seen as the authority, and whoever is in charge becomes the one who must be pleased. In a system of Communism, people are forced to cede their autonomy to those in charge, losing their individual freedoms, their choice to give, so they can avoid being punished by the government. Ultimately, a man-centered world-view is driven by fear.
When God is embraced, in a Christian world-view, man is created in the image of God and re-created in Christ, being forgiven, loved and accepted into His family, no longer being called a ‘slave,’ but now ‘friend’ and even a ‘son or daughter.’
In the Christian world-view, autonomy and the uniqueness of the individual is honored and, while there is submission, it is understood that it is a submission given from a heart of love, not fear; from a sense of family and trust, exemplified by God Himself.
Trust and Freedom
Trust can never be fabricated or forced, but only emanates from a relationship that has had an experience of consistent goodness, absent from harmful behaviors. Trust comes easily when constant love and caring are exhibited by the one to whom we yield our allegiance. When trust is broken by the absence of a wholesome relationship, an individual withdraws his allegiance and can only give the appearance of being loyal, out of a sense of obligation or fear of harm.
Christian giving flows from within the individual being empowered to give, in relationship with a giving God. “For God so loved the world that He gave…” (Jn. 3:16) Communism’s giving is expected and assumed: all that an individual has is automatically owned by the state. It philosophically rapes the individual, taking what otherwise could have been given freely, if there had been even a glimpse of trust involved.
In a free society (as in a person-to-person relationship), the individual is empowered to give from a motivation of love and trust. In an enslaved environment, the individual’s autonomy is stripped away, leaving only a motivation of survivalism, based on fear.
This raises the question, ‘Where does freedom come from?’ In order to answer that question, one may ask the opposite, ‘Where does bondage come from?’
It starts internally. People cannot give freely if they are not free within their own hearts. Once an individual is free within himself, he subsequently is empowered to give freely to others. “We love because He first loved us.” (I Jn. 4:19) God is love, and love is consistent with giving. (Jn. 3:16) As a Christian receives God’s love for himself, he becomes trusting of His goodness. The individual is able to release what is in his hands to others, knowing that God will give an exponential harvest back to him.
Jesus taught about giving to others freely, showing that the end result would be that God would motivate others to pour back into the giver’s life.
“Give and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, they will pour into your lap.” (Lk. 6:38)
Bondage occurs in the hearts of people, based upon the human condition of selfishness. In a perfect world, there would be balance in the process of giving and receiving in each relationship. However, as good of an effort that can be made to maintain a just balance, people, nevertheless, continually fall short of achieving this balance.
People become indebted to one another (and shrewd people will always learn how to leverage this inequity for their own personal gain).
“The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender’s slave.” (Prov. 22:7)
But inequity is not only financial, it is also inter-personal and emotional. When a trust is betrayed, a confidence broken, a promise walked back on between two individuals, one becomes bound to the other on an emotional level. Even within one’s self, when one breaks a promise to himself, a failed internal commitment to one’s self, guilt is the result. (Probably the best definition of ‘conscience’ is one’s relationship with himself.) When this internal relationship is broken, a sense of condemnation ensues. Out of this internal bondage, a ‘reverse-giving’ begins happening to ‘fill in the gap,’ to assuage this black hole on the inside.
People tend towards bondage, both within themselves and with others.
The only way out of this dilemma has to extend from beyond the ‘human experience.’ A solution outside of humanity is our only hope. God, through the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, provides forgiveness to anyone who will receive it. Christianity answers the question of bondage. It reverses the flow from selfishness to selflessness, from taking to giving. In a completely materialistic world-view, in the absence of God, man is bound to his own failure, and Communism gives us an exquisite picture of this depravity on a macro-scale.
Leadership Redefined
Even though the desired end result of Communism is for people to give to one another, it is a giving motivated by fear and not by love. The process of engaging the individual’s will and compassion is subverted. People’s individual autonomy, identity, ownership and worth is side-tracked. And this, ultimately, is demotivating and unsustainable.
Elitist people, at the top, seek to turn a nation into slaves, to serve their own personal agendas. Every decision is pushed from above, instead of releasing the creativity, energy and uniquenesses of a multitude of individuals. Control freaks are afraid of releasing the enormous potential of an ‘army’ of innovators so they don’t lose their hold on power.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Lord Acton)
So, from the Christian standpoint, God is all-powerful. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, the question then is, ‘Why is God not corrupted?’ Corruption is non-existent in Him.
Is it possible that we humans have the wrong concept of ‘power?’ Jesus talked about a new understanding of leadership.
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles (nations) lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matt. 20:25)
Servant-leadership requires the leader to release. God, the Father, released Jesus into the world. Jesus went to the cross not knowing if anyone would receive His sacrifice. Indeed, in all giving, there is risk! What is the risk? That the gift will be rejected. Yet, it is this very risk that empowers the giver to receive. It takes faith to give. When someone risks giving unconditionally, it unleashes the opportunity to exert their God-given uniqueness, their autonomy, their ability to choose. It unlocks their creative energy and potential. In this supernatural release, there also is a subsequent supernatural benefit. This life flows from a place beyond the material, natural realm.
Power actually is exhibited in its fullest strength through releasing, through reversing the flow of top-down control, having a willingness to empower others. The flow is reversed from self-serving autocratic control to others-serving release.
It is an amazing thing to watch a leader lose himself in serving others, only to find that God exalts him beyond what he could have gained through authoritarian control!
Personal Experience of Communism’s Result
I had the opportunity, as a young man, to see the effects of Communism, as my father and I travelled behind the ‘iron curtain’ to do musical tours. What I witnessed, and the people I talked with, changed my life forever.
It was almost a surreal experience for me, travelling from West Berlin to East Berlin through ‘Check-point Charlie.’ The atmosphere of freedom in West Berlin could not have been more starkly contrasted by the seriousness of the armed guards, carrying automatic machine guns, going through the bus questioning people to see what was in their luggage. The guards in the towers watched attentively, to keep people from escaping Soviet control. Between the two boundary walls was a field that was laced with land-mines. It was virtually impossible for anyone to leave the Soviet Union, although many desperately wished to try to escape somehow.
Once in East Berlin, I instantly noticed that everything seemed grey. The buildings, the sky, everyone’s clothes were grey. There was an oppressive atmosphere that could be felt.
I was fifteen years old at the time and had no pre-conceived idea of what things would be like. In our conversations with people, everyone was trying to give us their contact information. Apparently, if they could be invited, via mail correspondence, to travel outside the country, they might have a chance to defect. On one occasion, a young man explained that there was a single test at the end of ‘high-school’ that everyone took to determine whether they would be a doctor (or some other higher position) or a street-sweeper for the rest of their lives, no chance for advancement in either scenario. The orchestra we played with had depressed members, who couldn’t wait for the break in rehearsal to go to the 2nd floor bar and drink away their lifeless existence. Walking through the streets of Bucharest on New Year’s Eve, there were no parties or festivities, everything was quiet. But there were people walking around. Out of curiosity, we asked a gentleman walking, ‘Where is everyone going?’ His response was, ‘We’re just walking. The air is the only thing free here!’
The obvious lower standard of living, compared to the States, was evidenced by minimal modern conveniences. In the hotel we stayed, I noticed a crowd of residents gathered around a small black-and-white television set, watching the show, ‘Dallas.’ Only certain shows were allowed to be aired. The people we talked with, when they found out that we were from Texas asked if we were from Dallas, as this show had made the city famous. (Apparently, the government allowed this show to portray the corruption of capitalism, but it seemed to be having the opposite effect!)
It was difficult to find anything that was beautiful or inspiring in this situation. Most people were trying to find a way out, no one seemed content or happy to be there.
This is the effect of Communism I witnessed. In leadership, I have also noticed a consistent theme.
Servant-Leadership
When people in leadership or management are ‘top-down,’ there comes a limit to the details the one at the top can manage. If the subordinates are not given specific instructions about everything to be done, they often opt to do nothing, for fear of doing the wrong thing.
However, when people are released and empowered by a servant-leader situation, they take ownership of their decisions.
One of the best examples of this kind of leadership was explained in the book, Turn This Ship Around (L. David Marquet), in which the author describes his leadership transition from a top-down approach to empowering his crew to be proactive on a Navy nuclear submarine:
“I nudged Bill and suggested we increase speed from ‘ahead one third’ to ‘ahead two thirds’ on the EPM…’
Ahead two thirds,’ he ordered.
Nothing happened.
The helmsman should have reached over and rung up ahead two thirds. Instead, I could see him squirming in his chair. No one said anything, and several awkward seconds passed. Astutely noting that the order hadn’t been carried out, I asked the helmsman what was going on. He was facing his panel but reported over his shoulder, ‘Captain, there is no ahead two thirds on the EPM!’
I applauded the helmsman and grabbed Bill. In the corner of the control room, I asked him if he knew there was no ahead two thirds on the EPM.
‘Yes, Captain, I did.’
‘Well, why did you order it?’ I asked, astounded.
‘Well, because you told me to.’
What happens in a top-down culture when the leader is wrong? Everyone goes over the cliff.”
I experienced the benefits of individual proactivity as a college student when attending several Intervarsity Christian Fellowship Ministry ‘pot-luck’ dinners. I was amazed at how a bunch of college students, bringing something of their own making, would end up feeding everyone fully. Before the students showed up, I thought for sure we would all starve. But the creativity and caring attitude of each individual ended up saving the day! Everyone left satisfied. The only plan was that each person endeavored to bring their best, not out of compulsion or fear, but from a sense of blessing and love. In a small way, I realized what the early Church experienced.
“And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people.” (Acts 2:46-47)
In my graduate studies, it amazed me to find that many professors considered themselves to be Communists. As they enjoyed an environment of freedom in the U.S., they embraced an idealistic view of what Communism was, having never experienced it. I was convinced that if they had a chance to see it first-hand, as I had, they would change their opinion of its viability.
When I came back to the States, after my European travels, I had a much greater appreciation for the freedoms we enjoy here.
Unfortunately, over several decades, Communism has steadily crept into our culture, not only through the universities, but also through the corporate sector, as we have watched large-scale businesses become centralized, growing in ever-increasing power. As these mammoth corporations have begun to merge with the government’s administrative state, it has allowed the widespread control and surveillance of the populace to be more possible than at any other time, not only in American history, but arguably, in human history. The push towards a central digital currency further cements this intrusion into our individual freedoms.
Law versus Love
There is a concept about law and control that, in my estimation, has never been articulated more clearly than this statement by Dr. Edwin Louis Cole, “Much love, little law; little love, much law.’ One can correlate this thought with Scripture:
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” (Gal. 5:22)
My favorite leadership passage of the Bible may surprise you. It seems to have little to do with leadership, from a traditional standpoint:
“Four things are small on the earth, but they are exceedingly wise…The locusts have no king, yet all of them go out in ranks.” (Prov. 30:24, 27)
This thought is also congruent with God’s original plan for the Israelites. He desired that they be led by His Spirit instead of by a natural king. Yet, they wanted to be like the other nations.
“Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, ‘Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.’ But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.” (I Sam. 8:4-7)
The concept is this: the more each individual is led by the Spirit of God, the less control they require. In fact, they may require no external leadership at all.
However, the more selfish and self-serving individuals in a community or culture become, the more laws and controls become necessary to maintain societal order. When a society becomes so evil that government cannot maintain its control, it becomes a failed state and revolution ensues.
Concerning leadership, there is a spectrum that spans the two extremes of law versus love.
On one hand, there is a leader who exerts leadership by employing high levels of fear. Militaristically, this is exhibited by, “If you don’t do what I say, you’ll face the firing squad.” Or, in the context of a corporation, “Do what you’re told or you’ll be fired.”
On the other hand, at the highest level of leadership, people follow a leader because they love him/her. There is a deep appreciation and emotional connection to the leader, because the leader has demonstrated a desire to serve (in a myriad of ways) those who are following him.
There is a beautiful story of King David with his men that represents this:
“And David was then in the stronghold, while the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem. And David had a craving and said, ‘Oh, that someone would give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem which is by the gate!’ So the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem which was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David. Nevertheless he would not drink it, but poured it out to the Lord; and he said, ‘Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?’ Therefore he would not drink it.” (2 Sam. 23:14-17)
Notice the autonomy of the men and their admiration for David. But, even more importantly, notice the care and respect David had for his men. He honored them so much that he wouldn’t quench his own desire. And his reverence for God brought him to that attitude.
“It’s wonderful when the people believe in their leader. It’s more wonderful when the leader believes in their people!” (Booker T. Washington)
To summarize, you have both fear-based leadership and love-based leadership. These stand in opposition to each other. And there is everything between these two poles, defining ‘leadership-styles.’
There are times when strong, authoritative, highly controlling leadership is helpful, however.
Using a parent-child relationship as a metaphor: a parent will, of necessity, exert high focus and control over an infant, making sure the child is not falling into many kinds of dangers. However, as the child grows, it would be inappropriate for the parent to exert a micro-managing leadership style. As the child transitions from young-adulthood to adulthood, less stringent leadership should be needed. Indeed, the goal for the parent is to bring the child to full autonomy, not needing parental leadership at all.
This should be the goal of all leadership: autonomy. Jesus expected this of His disciples:
“A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher.” (Lk. 6:40)
Autonomy, Ownership, and Giving
Freedom and autonomy go together, but freedom cannot exist without maturity.
It is the great design of the nuclear family (consisting of Father, Mother and children) to bring children into mature autonomous behavior. When this system breaks down, other systems have to step in to make up the difference. If the family unit is strong, the society will be strong.
I used to ask my father the question, “When will I become a man?” I never received an answer that satisfied my curiosity until I heard yet another E.L. Cole maxim:
“The beginning of manhood is the acceptance of responsibility.”
When the leadership of a family or of a nation has the goal of making those they lead continually dependent upon themselves for every aspect of their lives, they are dooming those under their charge to live in a perpetual state of childhood.
Another way of saying it is: they are stripping them from the opportunity to mature. They are disallowing autonomy.
Autonomy requires ownership (or, at least stewardship). The concept of autonomy and ownership is foundational to love. As stated earlier, love is equated with giving (Jn. 3:16) One cannot give what one does not own. If you own nothing, you can give nothing. Giving is the highest expression of Godlikeness, again referencing John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave…”
When an individual is stripped of ownership, he is stripped of his ‘God-likeness.’
According to the first chapter of Genesis, we have been made in God’s image. Part of this likeness is having the right and the power to govern and control.
The desire to rule is innate in every human being, but the perversion of this desire is in trying to rule over people. God gave man dominion over everything but people.
“God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen. 1:28)
Consent
When dealing with people, all who have been made in the likeness of God, consent through relationship is a means to honor those made in His image. Herein lies the power of influence.
When people consent to agree, there is power.
Just as in acoustics, two frequencies in perfect phase joining together will double their combined amplitude. So, two people in agreement will multiply their influence.
The goal of leadership, therefore, is to bring people to maturity and autonomy, who own their own property and decisions, being willing, from a motivation of love, to share what they own into community, producing agreement through consent in relationship.
The benefit of a free society is exhibited by free and fair elections: Consent of the governed.
We live in an era in which greater autonomy is possible, as well as greater control. Technology has augmented both of these possibilities at the same time.
The goals of those who desire to control everything through technology will likely face a strength equal or more powerful coming from those who desire autonomy and individual expression.
When those who live in the Freedom that God has designed come together in consent-based relationship, the exponential power that will be generated will eclipse the top-down manipulative tactics of suppression.
There is a reason why the Soviet Union fell, and there is a reason why all Communist regimes will ultimately fall.
If those who have freedom in their hearts rise up in consent-based relationship, nothing will stop them.