Communism’s Persistent Pull
By Robert Higgs • Thursday December 9, 2010 7:08 PM PDT • 39 Comments
Plato supposed communism — not only of property, but also of wives and children — to be an ideal social arrangement. Jesus told his disciples to sell all that they owned and give the proceeds to the poor. Through the ages, little sects more numerous than anyone can count have embraced some form of communism as the basis of their utopian communities. John Lennon’s immensely popular, visionary song “Imagine” includes the line, “imagine no possessions, it’s easy if you try.” Even today, when the horrors of communism are known to everyone, social democrats the world over continue to denounce and undermine private property rights and seek to replace them with some form of collectivized property. Since the late nineteenth century, most intellectuals have been hostile to private property rights and have advocated, if not outright communism, at least some “third way” closer to it than to a regime of full-fledged private property.
Why have so many people regarded communism as the most desirable form of social organization?
F. A. Hayek offers a hypothesis in his final book The Fatal Conceit. Hayek argues that human beings act in many ways according to genetic predispositions inherited from a long period of development – a million or more years – during which they lived in small bands similar to, and indeed sometimes nothing more than, extended families. The family, of course, is a sort of communist arrangement: its members, especially the younger ones, live not by producing wealth and exchanging the rights to it among themselves, but by sharing in accordance with at-least-partly altruistic allocations made by the older members. By this means, human beings survived and eventually prospered. Humans who arranged their affairs differently, one presumes, died out, leaving only those who had been molded by and sought to maintain the traditional family arrangement. Little bands and tribes amounted to nothing more than the family writ large and managed their economic affairs accordingly.
When human beings finally began to interact with one another extensively in what Hayek calls “the great society” — the wider world of various tribes and nations and of far-flung markets linking them through commercial exchanges — they retained, according to Hayek, a genetic predisposition to conduct their affairs in the communal fashion of families and small bands from time immemorial. However, Hayek argues further, the altruism and fully-shared information that had undergirded the conduct of the family and the band do not, indeed, cannot exist in the great society. Seeking to replicate those primeval arrangements on a vastly greater scale is a futile quest. It represents only “an atavistic longing after the life of the noble savage.” At its worst, it gives rise to tragic disasters such as those experienced in the twentieth century in Russia, China, and other, similarly collectivized societies.
Hayek’s hypothesis is plausible, but I have no idea whether it is the best interpretation of the persistent human longing for some form of communism. This hypothesis, like most such socio-biological explanations, seems to be a “just so story” – it seems to make sense, but we lack a clear means of testing and possibly refuting it.
Other interpretations of the intellectuals’ penchant for communism certainly have been advanced.
For example, Ludwig von Mises argues in The Anti-Capitalist Mentality that the intellectuals suffer from frustration, envy, and resentment and blame their relatively poor position in the economy and society on “the rich,” especially the capitalists who have gained the greatest wealth by serving consumers most successfully in the markets. The obverse of the intellectuals’ hatred of the free-market system is their yearning for communism or some other system similarly hostile to private property rights.
In an essay titled “Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?,”Robert Nozick argues similarly that the intellectuals are people who were good at school work but are not good at practical affairs and therefore fail to gain the great wealth and social position achieved by business people and investors who, however unremarkable they might have been as schoolchildren, have what it takes to succeed in the marketplace. The intellectuals, convinced that the smart people (that is, those who were good at school) should run the world and rise to the top of society, harbor intense resentment toward the people who navigate the market most successfully and hence toward the socioeconomic order that accommodates this success.
Many people have taken notice recently that John Lennon was killed thirty years ago, and a great deal of maudlin sentiment has been on display in this regard. Radio stations have hauled out Lennon’s recording of “Imagine” to adorn this weepy occasion. Although I consider Lennon to have been a gifted song writer, I do not recommend him as a political or social philosopher. Nevertheless, I do not condemn “Imagine” in every regard. The music itself is beautiful and beautifully performed, and I cherish the line, “Imagine there’s no countries / It isn’t hard to do.” After all, what is a nation-state but a sort of communism in its own right: a violent suppression of competing private protective agencies by a single, all-encompassing, exceedingly presumptive, and often worthless guardian — and a spectacularly obnoxious one, to boot.
Tags: Economics, Family, Free Market, Liberty, Politics, Power, Property Rights, Socialism, The State 
Imagine no possessions. It seems that Yoko Ono has a hard time “imagining” no possessions when she sued the producers of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” for copyright infringement of the song “Imagine.” I find that to be a funny irony.
It also shows the blatant hypocrisy of the collectivists in that collectivism is good for the “other” guy, but not for them. I think of the old Soviet “star city” that separated the elite cosmonauts from the masses in their communist country.
Efrem | Dec 9, 2010 | Reply
The first problem of any society is not production, but distribution:
http://www.chineseimperium.com/essaysPending/MarxWasRight.htm
Terry Hulsey | Dec 9, 2010 | Reply
I was talking about this recently with an “average Joe” (of my age) who was very un-introspected in his philosophical ideas, and he really had me run down “What is Capitalism” through its logical ideas. After breaking it down, as follows (in my lame attempt), I can kind of understand the natural aversion to private property:
1. Most important resources are scarce, therefore and until this continues, utopia and equality is impossible.
2. There is no available way for a few people to “calculate” who does what and who gets what.
3. Decentralized production and distribution lead to conflict due to #1 (which causes “greed”)
4. Private property (and some type of law to back it up) may be used to avoid such conflict.
5. The “selfish” greed from #3 is enabled by private property in #4 and channeled into, unintuitively, the greater good, because, absent monopolies such as government, the greed may only be satisfied through voluntary exchange (“the customer is always right”)
You have to admit, this isn’t at all intuitive, especially if any item is taken out of context.
Zirb | Dec 9, 2010 | Reply
I read recently of an exchange between John Lennon and one of his employees, a manager or agent, in regard to some royalty disagreement.
The agent said something like, “John, ‘imagine no posessions’.” To which Lennon responded, “That’s just a bloody song, you know”.
To me, “Imagine” was Lennon’s songwriting at its loopy worst. He penned some fine lyrics in his day, but the ones to this collectivist croon wasn’t among the fine ones, in my opinion.
Ed Roberts | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
John Lennon gets some credit for political theory. Here he recognized that overpopulation was a myth, largely to distract from state crimes like the Vietnam war:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/66972.html
Anthony Gregory | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
Evidently Lennon did catch on to some aspects of economic reality, though belatedly:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/08/john-lennons-greatest-hits
D. Saul Weiner | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
Regarding Hayek’s view, which has some plausibility, one must also keep in mind that, for the vast majority of human history, children were important economic assets. While, of course, they could contribute little in their first few years, they could and did make substantial economic contributions through most of what we now consider to be “childhood”. Modern life, where kids have become marginalized economically, if not altogether excluded from participation, is an anomaly. So that earlier reality is the backdrop for Hayek’s contention, not our current arrangement.
D. Saul Weiner | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
Hi, Bob.
Great posting, as always.
Just to clarify, there’s no evidence that Jesus was a communist, and he certainly did not tell his followers to sell all their possessions and give them to the poor as a matter of general practice.
In his dealings with specific individuals, he saw and addressed different impediments specific to each individual’s ability to embrace the Kingdom of Heaven—with excessive love of one’s possessions sometimes being that impediment.
The example I believe you are referring to was an exchange between Jesus and a “rich young ruler.” (Luke 18: 15-30)
The exchange concludes with the young ruler’s reaction: “When he heard that he turned very sad; he was extremely wealthy.”
There is evidence throughout the New Testament that Jesus’s disciples and other followers kept their possessions, even though they habitually left them behind when traveling with him. At one point, for example, Jesus stays at Peter’s house and heals his mother-in-law while there.
Thus, there’s no evidence that Jesus didn’t believe in private property. Indeed, in including in his “top 5″ listing of the 10 commandments, “don’t steal,” he was stressing the supreme importance and sanctity of private property rights.
Mary Theroux | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
@Mary Theroux:
The Biblical proscription against stealing does not prove that God supports private property. God could have been referring to theft of communal property.
Jesus didn’t advocate communism for his disciples; he advocated social parasitism: own nothing, do no useful work, and rely on the kindness of others for food, clothing, and shelter.
Dr. T | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
I always understood the translation of the Luke posted above as “a member of one of the leading families,” not a “young ruler.” What version are you using?
Also, I feel there can be no clear vision of what Jesus espoused regarding any sort of collectivism. On the other hand, the Acts of the Apostles, makes it quite clear that the early “Christians” (although they weren’t known by this name at the time) were to give up everything to be kept in common.
In fact, Luke makes it quite clear in the Acts of the Apostles that to withhold a portion of your wealth and lie about it will result in a serious smite from above. I have always detested this passage.
Also, the result of such collectivizing is surely (at least I feel it is) at the root of the Apostle Paul’s exhortation to people to WORK. Paul never gave up his work as a tentmaker. Who knew the time or the place, but in the meantime young man, GET A JOB. :-)
Elizabeth | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
Mary is absolutely right. It is a terrible error to put the Christ in league with communists. Just to expand on what Mary said, it is obvious from reading the passage that Jesus perceived that the rich young ruler, though claiming to have kept all the commandments, worshiped an idol rather than the Lord. His idol was his wealth. The thought of giving up this idol caused him great grief. Christ showed him the problem and the Bible does not reveal whether the rich young ruler ever ceased his worship of wealth and followed Christ alone. Now, we must be careful to remember that wealth was the idol–the problem of the rich young ruler. Christ is not saying that all who have wealth view it as an idol. There were no doubt many wealthy people who followed Jesus and remained wealthy. Lydia is an example. She was a dealer in purple cloth—a luxury item—and likely very, very rich. She used her wealth to open her large home to Paul and his companions—providing lodging and assistance in Phillipi. (Acts 16: 15, 40) We also learn that after coming to saving faith, a church began holding meetings at her house. Most likely this was a large compound and could host large number of believers. There is no hint that Lydia’s fine home and successful business were frowned upon. Lydia is an example of one who did not worship wealth and instead used a portion of her wealth—rather than worship this wealth—for the advancement of his Kingdom!!
William Watkins | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
Here‘s John slamming socialism and presidential worship.
Agrippa | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
One more point regarding communal property in Acts. It is true that Acts 4:32 shows the believers in the infant church being of “one heart and soul” recognizing the great need in the early church and selling their possessions and holding everything in common. Ananias and Sapphira, in Acts 5, were struck down because they misrepresented that they were giving the full sales price of a piece of land for the use of the church. They could have kept all the money for themselves—the sin was the lie told when presenting the money to Peter. It seems that the testimony of the whole church was at risk because of their sin and thus they received a harsh punishment. Bottom line: they were not punished for keeping a portion of the money. They were punished for bearing false witness.
William Watkins | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
I claim no expertise whatsoever in theology, but a number of verses seem quite clear (yes, yes, I know that nothing is quite clear in the Bible once people begin to argue about it). For example,
Luke 12:33: Sell that ye have, and give alms ....
Luke 14:33: So likewise whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Acts 2:44: And all that believed were together, and had all things common.
Acts 4:32: And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
And so forth.
Robert Higgs | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
@William
I hear the argument quite often that Ananias was struck dead only because he lied. But considering human nature, I have often wondered what sort of social pressure was brought to bear against him and his wife to get them to sell the land. They obviously didn’t really agree to it, even though the scripture says they did, because if they had REALLY agreed, they wouldn’t have tried to keep some of the money for themselves.
The reason I never liked this passage is because it always struck me as an early attempt to scare people into coughing up their wealth.
@Mary and William
Ideology trumps faith.
If one’s ideology is predisposed toward owning things, one will find it extremely difficult to believe that Jesus could possibly mean that you should actually give up your wealth, and so we will latch onto a theology that supports our ideological viewpoint.
I am a member of a well-to-do Episcopal congregation and this “he doesn’t really mean that” theology is very popular. Go a mile away to the really poor black church (whose pastor also studied theology), and you will find that they believe that Jesus absolutely DOES want you to give up your wealth.
I accept that even while it is true that Jesus doesn’t want us to worship idols, he also believes that is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven, and don’t forget that the last shall be first, and blessed are the poor. “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” “But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.” “None of you can be my disciples unless he gives up all his possessions.”
I have no trouble believing the Jesus wants me to give away everything I own to the poor. And yet I do not do it. I am a sinner.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is revolutionary. He showed us the way, and every day I walk away from the revolutionary path and do what is comfortable. So might the case be for Lydia. The bible is positively populated with people who despite their sins, were used by God for the furtherance of his kingdom, after all Noah was the last righteous man. Lydia could still be a sinner and serve the Lord, which is all I, too, can hope to be and do. But I refuse to adopt a comfortable theology that turns a revolutionary doctrine into a conservative one.
Elizabeth | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
Dr. Higgs and Elizabeth:
Here in the east, it is my bed time. However, I’d like to offer more thoughts on this tomorrow.
Peace.
William Watkins | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
I don’t know a thing about the Bible, but I do know that everyone selling everything they own and giving alms (Luke 12:33) is a physical impossibility. For someone to sell something, isn’t there a buyer on the other end?
And what does the seller get in return? Money? What would he do with it if he’s supposed to sell his possessions? Isn’t money a possession?
That aside, if everyone is accepting charity and no one is producing, wouldn’t that suggest mass starvation? One can’t give what one doesn’t have. Oh well....
Steve Hogan | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
Interesting comments, I hope it continues.
I’m not certain how it goes exactly, but there’s a lengthy story about God being a Capitalist and paying workers wages.
Everything else flows from there. If any interpretation suggests Communism, why would anyone work for God’s wages, and how could it contradict God as a Capitalist? There seems to be errors in interpretation, imho.
clark | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
Elizabeth:
I was using N.T. Wright’s translation. But the heading for this section in the NIV is “The Rich Ruler,” the Gideons have “a certain ruler,” the Moffatt translation also says “a ruler;” and The Message says “the rich official.”
Elizabeth and Bob: As The Message further paraphrases Jesus, “Do you have any idea how hard it is for people who have it all to enter God’s Kingdom?”—this is precisely the point of the passages you (and I) quote from Luke: as first-century Palestinians, so we 21st century Americans living in untold prosperity—who needs God when we’re clearly just fine without Him? Yet, as Luke 12:33 from “The Parable of the Rich Fool” shows, those who set their faith in temporal possessions will be disappointed. It is better to live generously.
Luke 14:33 is part and parcel of a talk Jesus gave to a crowd, which begins:
I don’t think you believe he was literally instructing all of his followers to hate their families and themselves, do you? Or that we must die horrible deaths to earn a place in heaven? He is saying that one must be willing to put everything one values at risk for the sake of the Kingdom of God.
It’s not about giving up all possessions. It’s about keeping the First Commandment.
As for Acts 2 and 4, this “new covenant” community held everything in common, believing that not only had their sins been forgiven, but also their debts, harking back to Deut. 15:4, “There will be no needy person among you.” (Acts 4: 34: “For there was no needy person among them...”) This was one community of extremely devout followers, and it nowhere says that this is to be the new model for everyone. Indeed, in the exact same account it tells of Barnabas who sold “some land which belonged to him, brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.” It does not say he sold all he had.
One reason the early Christian church grew so rapidly—and that organizations today like The Salvation Army are so powerful—is because of their incredible practice of love and charitableness to those in need—the gift of love given by God in Christ being matched by their sharing—not only within their own, closed community, but across geographies and cultures. Rodney Stark documents the inspiring practice of charity within Roman communities of Christians to pagans in time of plague, for example. Pagans abandoned their own and fled the cities when plague struck; Christians stayed, nursing Christians and pagans alike.
As for Ananias and Sapphira, Bill Watkins is exactly correct. Luke (Acts 5: 1-4) is clear that they were struck down for the lie, not for withholding some of what they had:
It was his to keep or to give. But in lying that he was giving all the price he had received, he was mocking God—thinking he could fool God.
Yes, Elizabeth, Lydia is a wonderful example of a successful entrepreneur who was also a devout and generous follower, and she is held up as a paragon. Paul was very clear in his writings to the Thessalonians, for example, about communal living as a general way of life—warning of the danger of people sponging off the community when they are quite capable of earning their own living. I believe we are to exercise the blessings and talents we are given to the glory of God: if we are talented tent-makers or wordsmiths, do so to the best of our abilities. If we do not produce, we have nothing to share; if we give away all we have, we have nothing further to give, and, in fact, then require the charity of others, unnecessarily.
Bottom line, it seems to me the message is to utilize our talents, but don’t put false pride in thinking that our talents are what we are. Be prepared to lose all—don’t look to what we have, or who we love here on earth, or our great birthright, or abilities, or whatever we may be taking great pride in ourselves for. And in the meantime, love others, do good unto others: “Feed my sheep.” But, as the Salvation Army says and does: if you view the person you are helping as truly your equal in God’s eyes, offer a hand up, not a hand-out: charity (agape, love), not perpetual dependence. We are not here to keep people in poverty and misery. And that is what communism does.
Mary Theroux | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
Hi, Clark.
I think you’re referencing the Parable of the Laborers (Matthew 20: 1-16). The point of it isn’t something about capitalism, but about grace: it doesn’t matter if we “find” Jesus first, or pray harder or work harder for God. We can’t earn our way into heaven, or work our way there by our own efforts. It’s not about us. It’s a God thing: those who turn to God late, or imperfectly, aren’t put behind those who have lived piously all their lives, made generous contributions to their church, helped the poor extraordinarily... God “pays” all who come to him—humbly, truly—the same: with love and acceptance and welcome—as the Prodigal son.
Mary Theroux | Dec 10, 2010 | Reply
Yes, Mary, I think that’s the one.
I know it’s not the point of the story, but the Capitalist description is there.
He supports contract law too when He paid the laborers different wages and one group complained of getting a lower wage for the same work, He told them they agreed to those wages, so the contract sticks. A Capitalist and supports contract law, and private property rights—the employer can set the wage rate.
clark | Dec 11, 2010 | Reply
Mary’s last post was beautiful and much of what I wanted to say—just 10 times better than I ever could. Thus, I have only a couple of final points I would like to raise.
First, while I believe that Scripture supports private property in a free society, that is not the primary purpose of the Bible. The Bible is God’s word in which he reveals himself to us. As far back as Genesis 3:15 he promised that the offspring of the woman would crush the head of Satan and that his heel would be bruised in the process. In Genesis 12, he also promises Abram that all peoples on the earth will be blessed through him. These promises were fulfilled in Jesus Christ through his perfect life and atoning death on the cross. Through him and only through him can we be adopted into the family of God.
Some might argue that God is stingy in providing only one way to him. At least for me, I believe that that is one more way than I deserve. I accept this gift of salvation in Christ and marvel at the mercy of the Father that he would place my sins on Christ and credit me with his righteousness.
Finally, I disagree with Elizabeth that God wants us to give everything we have to the poor. Mary is correct that we are commanded to be generous with the wealth God has entrusted to us. Mary does a nice job of putting this in the context of surrounding Scripture where we are warned against worshiping the comforts of this world rather than preparing ourselves for the age to come.
Luxury can be debilitating. Look at the number of rich Americans who commit suicide, suffer from depression, and self-medicate with illegal drugs. Earthly treasure brings only passing happiness. But the treasure of knowing Christ and his mercy is a gift that will never lose its luster. What love we have been shown!
William Watkins | Dec 11, 2010 | Reply
Christian charity is a freely made choice and a matter of the heart. Love, Jesus said, is the greatest Commandment. Love of God foremost.
Communism is an entirely different matter. There is no choice involved in the nations which place ownership and the fruits of man’s labors under government control. It’s theft of the human spirit and motivation to take the fruits of one’s efforts to give to another. Teach a man to fish . . . is the tried and true, value-added way to build a society.
In our great nation, I see Capitalism condemned by the cultural elites, Democratic Socialists in Congress, celebs, who are often very wealthy–what is stopping them from gifting their private property to the government for the good of the people as they espouse the rest of us do? Nothing and no one stops them. Clearly, they don’t adhere to their own philosophy when it comes to their own pockets.
Bill & Melinda Gates and others like them, donate enormous sums—but not, as far as I know, directly to the government. They donate to whomever and to whatever charities they choose to be funded by their foundations. No Washington D.C. bureaucrat takes their money and makes that choice for them. May we all have more left after taxes to do the same.
That’s the benefit of Capitalism. Free choice.
Ceci | Dec 11, 2010 | Reply
Simply put, collective effort can produce wonderful results. Rousseau was right that there is something that we could call a social compact and that it is good.
However, when the social compact is institutionalized, as it were, it loses something. The more broadly it is institutionalized, and the more coercively it is demagogued, the worse the loss.
Coercion begets the breakdown of relations. The breakdown of relations undermines the power of collective action, and at a certain point, the value of the collective is gone, and only the coercion is still felt.
The family may be the first basis for people to be socialized to coercive collectivism. But this is social psychology, not Hayek’s just-so darwinian geneticalism.
What is the “opposite” of communism? Well, according to the pop culture, that would be capitalism. But what is capitalism? You and I are probably referring to a free people/free markets concept when we use the word, but look how it’s used in the pop world...
What most people think of as capitalism–the “example” they see, that all the pundits call capitalism–is awful. It’s not capitalism–not the way you and I think of it, but a royalistic mercantilism, fraught with the same elitism and unamerican entitlements for the elite (goodbye all created equal) as one sees in old Europe’s feudal adventures, against which the likes of Sam Adams rebelled.
Note that elite corp Monsanto wants to completely monopolize agriculture. They get away with marketing GMO frankenfoods with no labeling(per FDA, you can’t even label non-GMO foods as non-GMO), and currently, a bill to further enhance Monsanto’s death grip, S510 is floating through Congress, apparently sure to pass and be signed. Is this capitalism? Joe the Plumber thinks so.
Note that Big Pharma is hostile to food supplements and herbal remedies. Why? Well, it’s a negative driver on how much Big P can gouge you for the Prozac you desperately need because of today’s American “capitalism.” FDA is pushing hard to protect Big P from any real competition. Is this capitalism? Joe Sixpack thinks so.
Note the parties drooling over Obamacare. Is that capitalism? Heh, well some are waking up. No, it’s not. Although as with the above two examples, the Joes and even a few of the better-educateds still think it’s capitalism, or an inevitable outgrowth or consequence of it. But these examples are corporate royalism, not a free market.
No, I really think it’s simpler than Nozick, Mises and Hayek made out. It’s either the over-generalization of lazy minds who appreciate teamwork, or the corruption of lazy bodies who unduly benefit from communism. I really don’t think it amounts to much more than that.
And anti-capitalism? Just look at the example most people see, and even the semi-enlightened believe is an inevitable outgrowth of true free markets. Easy to beat up capitalism, when looking on such corruption. And the “opposite”?
And re: John Lennon. Human cooperation is a beautiful thing. Lennon sold hope. When we freedom minded learn to sell hope–especially true hopes based in things that truly merit hope–the world will be a lot better off.
LawrenceD | Dec 12, 2010 | Reply
Judging by several comments made about Doc Higgs cogent article, something is always apparent with regard to the mention or reference of/to “God, Jesus or Bible verse, etc....”
The age-old problem with the “literary” masterpiece, the Good Book, the Bible, seemingly falls back to the never-ending interpretations of metaphors, allegories, similes and other word contrivances that lead to different judgments, not necessarily the truth. Therein lays the real problem, not what’s in the Good Book but the never-ending interpretations and assaults of belief over fact. (My “interpretation is correct,” yours ... is not!” ... “Let’s go to war to settle who is correct ... ad nauseam.”) Think not? Think again! That is historical fact.
The Bible is a “literary” compilation and not a complete, historically factual reference backed by verifiably proven fact. (Again, the perpetual arguments assemble, never-ending!) Yet, Bible pundits and theologians throughout the ages, each claim their interpretation, is the “truth!” Again, the disagreement is never-ending ... and never will be. The corpuses will pile up, each defending his or her correctness. Never-ending.
Maybe Doc Higgs touched on something with parallel correctness: the atavistic resurgence ... of simian genes! Now that ought to be a real dander-raiser!
Capt. A. | Dec 13, 2010 | Reply
While F. A. Hayek was correct that human ties were originally and generally personal/tribal (familial) and then became more complex as societies grew, I believe that Hayek’s conception of the matter is confused and simplistic. Hayek knew that humans are rational and relational beings whose existence and nature cannot be explained as simply the product of “matter in motion”, but then he apparently seemed to embrace the standard naturalistic/reductionist explanation. One reason why this is unclear is because we now know from the work of Jeffrey Friedman that the book The Fatal Conceit was heavily reworked (and written) by William W. Bartley III after Hayek’s death to inject Bartley’s own hyper-Popperian views. What exactly were Hayek’s own views remains uncertain and I counsel everyone to read the book only in this light.
In any event, what I believe is a far better framework to use is to recognize that we as human beings seek to connect with others, to love and be loved. We seek communion with others, and our minds only exist and are connected to the ideas of past and present minds. As a result, our consciousness (soul) craves perfect meaning and connection. Blaise Pascal stated it this way:
Or as C. S. Lewis noted:
People are communal because they seek not oblivion but the cooperative ties and fulfillment from perfect love, and as John stated, “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” This point resonates throughout the history of the endeavors, literature, and musings of mankind. The complication creeps in when any person hubristically believes that he or she is an end in oneself as meaning is seen to be the mere self-reflection from narcissism. As C.S. Lewis further noted, “The natural life in each of us is something self-centered, something that wants to be petted and admired, to take advantage of other lives, to exploit the whole universe.” [Mere Christianity] But such self-centeredness is really and ultimately only self-annihilation, and those who seek connection and meaning by abandoning love for others through the voluntary ties in community is what “communism” and all forms of tyranny are all about.
Lewis consequently drew a clear distinction between the reality of the importance of membership as a voluntary, loving act in a community and the tendencies to fall prey to the absurdities and dangers of collectivism:
David Theroux | Dec 13, 2010 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
As usual, your writing is right on the money. I do think, however, that Jesus was not interested in this world so much as what he believed the next world was going to be like when what he called “the kingdom of God” came to Earth. Also I agree that John Lennon WAS a great songwriter, but politically I think he was still evolving. Because of his tragic death a lot of people forget some of the absolutely inane things he said. That’s probably one of the prices of fame; most everything you say is recorded somewhere and can and will be used against you. Had he lived, he might have changed some of his views.
Steve Hill | Dec 14, 2010 | Reply
Re Jesus as a sort of hippy collectivist: It is very unlikely that he was really advocating some sort of communist program, in spite of what Mises and others say. Ironically, you will find Charles Gave’s Un libéral nommé Jésus (A Liberal Named Jesus) available on line, a book published in 2005 by a French financial analyst. It has apparently been translated into English as Jesus: The Unknown Economist (2007).
Curmudgeon | Dec 15, 2010 | Reply
Communism’s persistent pull seems to be based on the idea that it is the only viable option to the problem of private property and self-determination.
Mary’s comments above concerning the “young ruler” seem to underscore Christ’s teachings which paradoxically preserve one’s private property while maintaining self-determination.
A number of years ago, ancient studies scholar Hugh Nibley pointed out the ancient definition of “private property” in Israelite society: “something intimate, personal, and indispensable, like a person’s garment, the sort of thing everyone must have for his own under any economic system.” (See Nibley on the Redistribution of Wealth.
Greg | Dec 18, 2010 | Reply
Curmudgeon, You may also be interested in the following:
The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, by Rodney Stark
“How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West,” by Rodney Stark (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
“C. S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism,” by David J. Theroux (forthcoming in Culture and Civilization)
“Jim Wallis and the Folly of “Progressive” Christianity,” by David J. Theroux (Patheos)
“Economic Science and the Poverty of Naturalism: C. S. Lewis’s ‘Argument from Reason’,” by David J. Theroux (Journal of Private Enterprise)
And here are other references on Christianity and economics and Christianity and liberty.
David Theroux | Dec 18, 2010 | Reply
Intellectuals don’t have to be envious and resentful in order to be communists. In order to become a professor, one has to be very smart in one’s field. That can grease the rails that lead to Hayek’s fatal conceit. Combine brains that have developed in one direction only, and a caring heart, and you can get a mishmash of fantasy economics combined with excessive confidence in one’s ability to understand things.
I studied process theology which is very demanding, also rewarding philosophically. But some of the economics touted by the brilliant professors who taught me were just ridiculous. One big name in the field said that because of the U.S. Embargo, Cuba had achieved self-sufficiency in food production. That just broke my heart. No doubt in my mind this man was brilliant in his field.
I don’t think it was envy that drove this man to his views. They don’t get paid much, but they don’t have to pay 100 percent for their own computers, books, and vacations, either. What else is there in life? There may be a few who would have wanted a Maserati, but that doesn’t strike me as the rule.
One thing that did strike me was the prevalence of what looked to me like feelings of inferiority among the professors. Occasionally, I would detect in them a need to impress the students with stories of feats of intellect that had the same sound as stories about winning sports competitions or doing well hunting. Nothing wrong with this, but my experience has led me to believe that the drive to excel in academia is sometimes motivated by a strong need to compensate for feelings of inferiority. People like this would be hard pressed to admit that they don’t actually understand economics. But they have to work so hard to stay at the top of the heap of their own discipline that they accept an inferior set of economic ideas without the insight that they are doing this.
I thought Slavisa Tasik’s article in the spring 2010 issues of The Independent (“The Growth of Government Springs More from Ideas Than from Vested Interests”) was excellent and addresses this issue very well.
Cris | Dec 18, 2010 | Reply
The most basic presumption of communism is that there is NO “greed;” As I know for a fact there is at least one greedy person, (and from what I can tell, a lot more) communism cannot work. In one “Late Night Debating Society” discussion we figured that in a true communism we could do all the work in three days per week, and in general, you could work at exactly the job that you wanted.
Also, I would like to see a map without borders – “nothing to kill or die for.”
Donald | Dec 18, 2010 | Reply
Two other books well worth recommending are the following classics by the great sociologist of liberty and civil society:
The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom, by Robert A. Nisbet
Twilight of Authority, by Robert A. Nisbet
David Theroux | Dec 19, 2010 | Reply
We’re referring to gov’t socialism and or communism (not communes in Israel).
Communes have all kinds of benefits. Food co-ops for example. Or how about flight school clubs for private pilots.
What’s wrong with govt socialism or govt communism ? It destroys everything because it destroys individualism and self reliance, and it creates leviathan govt that will destroy privacy, freedom, and safety. Gov’t is always our worst enemy.
Tory II | Dec 19, 2010 | Reply
My favorite line in the song is—no religion too. There is a little something in that song for everybody to like, and to object to also. That’s why it’s so great.
Dan Fernandes | Dec 19, 2010 | Reply
Dan and others, I would suggest that Lennon’s song “Imagine” is an incoherent and jumbled statement reflecting his own trendy, New Age, post-modern, collectivist and nihilist views, including his own profound confusion regarding such key concepts as natural law, property, community, and metaphysics (i.e., philosophy of religion). Its popularity reflects many of the common and suicidal confusions within the popular and elite culture of the Western world.
In contrast, I would recommend The Abolition of Man, by C.S. Lewis.
David Theroux | Dec 19, 2010 | Reply