The True History of Communism

Article: “100 Years. 100 Million Lives. Think Twice” by Laura M. Nicolae (original source here)

In 1988, my twenty-six-year-old father jumped off a train in the middle of Hungary with nothing but the clothes on his back. For the next two years, he fled an oppressive Romanian Communist regime that would kill him if they ever laid hands on him again.

My father ran from a government that beat, tortured, and brainwashed its citizens. His childhood friend disappeared after scrawling an insult about the dictator on the school bathroom wall. His neighbors starved to death from food rations designed to combat “obesity.” As the population dwindled, women were sent to the hospital every month to make sure they were getting pregnant.

My father’s escape journey eventually led him to the United States. He moved to the Midwest and married a Romanian woman who had left for America the minute the regime collapsed. Today, my parents are doctors in quiet, suburban Kansas. Both of their daughters go to Harvard. They are the lucky ones.

Roughly 100 million people died at the hands of the ideology my parents escaped. They cannot tell their story. We owe it to them to recognize that this ideology is not a fad, and their deaths are not a joke.

Last month marked 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution, though college culture would give you precisely the opposite impression. Depictions of communism on campus paint the ideology as revolutionary or idealistic, overlooking its authoritarian violence. Instead of deepening our understanding of the world, the college experience teaches us to reduce one of the most destructive ideologies in human history to a one-dimensional, sanitized narrative.

Walk around campus, and you’re likely to spot Ché Guevara on a few shirts and button pins. A sophomore jokes that he’s declared a secondary in “communist ideology and implementation.” The new Leftist Club on campus seeks “a modern perspective” on Marx and Lenin to “alleviate the stigma around the concept of Leftism.” An author laments in these pages that it’s too difficult to meet communists here. For many students, casually endorsing communism is a cool, edgy way to gripe about the world.

After spending four years on a campus saturated with Marxist memes and jokes about communist revolutions, my classmates will graduate with the impression that communism represents a light-hearted critique of the status quo, rather than an empirically violent philosophy that destroyed millions of lives.

Statistics show that young Americans are indeed oblivious to communism’s harrowing past. According to a YouGov poll, only half of millennials believe that communism was a problem, and about a third believe that President George W. Bush killed more people than Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who killed 20 million. If you ask millennials how many people communism killed, 75 percent will undershoot.

Perhaps before joking about communist revolutions, we should remember that Stalin’s secret police tortured “traitors” in secret prisons by sticking needles under their fingernails or beating them until their bones were broken. Lenin seized food from the poor, causing a famine in the Soviet Union that induced desperate mothers to eat their own children and peasants to dig up corpses for food. In every country that communism was tried, it resulted in massacres, starvation, and terror.

Communism cannot be separated from oppression; in fact, it depends upon it. In the communist society, the collective is supreme. Personal autonomy is nonexistent. Human beings are simply cogs in a machine tasked with producing utopia; they have no value of their own.

Many in my generation have blurred the reality of communism with the illusion of utopia. I never had that luxury. Growing up, my understanding of communism was personalized; I could see its lasting impact in the faces of my family members telling stories of their past. My perspective toward the ideology is radically different because I know the people who survived it; my relatives continue to wonder about their friends who did not.

The stories of survivors paint a more vivid picture of communism than the textbooks my classmates have read. While we may never fully understand all of the atrocities that occurred under communist regimes, we can desperately try to ensure the world never repeats their mistakes. To that end, we must tell the accounts of survivors and fight the trivialization of communism’s bloody past.

My father left behind his parents, friends, and neighbors in the hope of finding freedom. I know his story because it is my heritage; you now know his story because I have a voice. One hundred million other people were silenced.

One hundred years later, let us not forget the history of the victims who do not have a voice because they did not survive the writing of their tales. Most importantly, let us not be tempted to repeat it.

Laura M. Nicolae ’20 is an Applied Mathematics concentrator in Winthrop House.

Socialism

Article: Socialism in Jesus’ Name? by R.C. Sproul, Jr (original source here)

“Jesus wants us to care for the poor. Socialism cares for the poor. Therefore Jesus wants socialism.” It’s a pretty simple syllogism. It is, nevertheless, a terribly flawed one. The first premise, Jesus wants us to care for the poor, is true enough. If we are given to rejecting the conclusion, that doesn’t call us to deny the truth of the first premise. The mistreatment of the poor was regular fodder for the Old Testament prophets, and the right care of the poor a key theme in the establishment of the law for God’s people, Israel. Jesus spoke to the issue as well, as did many of the New Testament epistle writers.

The second premise is not true enough. It’s not true at all. I will soon address its lack of truth, but for now, I’m willing to grant that it is true, in order to demonstrate that the syllogism is still flawed. All we need to do is substitute two different true premises and find that the conclusion is false. Consider this syllogism—It is good for my lawn to be watered. A flood of Noahic proportions waters my lawn. Therefore a flood of Noahic proportions is good for my lawn. Or this—Jesus wants criminals to be punished. Vigilantism punishes criminals. Therefore, Jesus wants vigilantism.

The essence of all three arguments reduces down to this—any means that achieves a desired end must be good, something we should seek. In short, the ends justify the means. The trouble is, they don’t. One of the baleful influences of pragmatism on the broader culture and on the church is that we choose our ends, rightly or wrongly, and then ignore the law of God in deciding how to pursue those ends. God’s law, however, shows us not only what we ought to be pursuing, but the right and biblical path for pursuing it. Doing God’s things our ways in the end is doing our things, not God’s things.

Socialism operates under the premise that the state not only has the authority to take what rightfully belongs to one man to give it to another, but has a duty to do so. Whether it is socialized education, or socialized health care, or socialized medication, or socialized retirement, or simply the taking of cash from one man to give to another, it is of a piece. That we might be in favor of education or medicine or retirement, that we might want to see others receive these blessings, however, should not lead us to support programs that take the wealth God has entrusted to the care of one man to give to another. When one man takes from another by force we rightly call this stealing, something forbidden by God in the Ten Commandments. When ten men or ten million men elect civil leaders to take the wealth of others by force, this too is something forbidden by God in the Ten Commandments. It no more makes a difference if this stealing benefits us or those we would like to see benefited. Continue reading

Socialism

richardphillips-03Article: “Socialism Is Evil” by Rick Phillips (original source here)

In a recent blog post I urged the biblical basis for the spirituality of the church. One of the points I made is that while the church does not meddle in civil government, it most certainly may speak against social evils. Christians and pastors can and should speak out on evils such as racism, government sponsored torture, or, in this case, socialism.

I bring up socialism because I have noticed that it is becoming fashionable for Christians to denounce capitalism and laud socialism as a more biblical alternative. I get how this happens. Under capitalism, sin wreaks its usual havoc and the system is blamed for the injustice common to fallen human society. There are biblical principles that seem to push back against capitalism – such as concern for the well-being of others – which really should be addressed to how people use the system rather than the system itself. To be sure, capitalism itself provides no tonic for the disease of sin. Moreover, Christians should be discerning enough to scorn the adolescent egotism of Ayn Rand-style capitalism and realize the need for government intervention against capitalistic abuses. But in reacting against these, Christians should also have enough discernment not to endorse a system so inherently evil as socialism.

So, biblically speaking, why is socialism evil? Let me suggest three reasons:

1. Because socialism is a system based on stealing;
2. Because socialism is an anti-work system; and
3. Because socialism concentrates the power to do evil.

Let’s look at each of these briefly:

1. Because socialism is a system based on stealing. The whole point of socialism is for the government to seize control of private property, mainly involving the proceeds of peoples’ work, in order to give it to others. (Note the compulsory aspect of socialism, which so differs from voluntary forms of communalism.) This activity is the very thing pronounced as evil by the 8th Commandment: “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15).

Throughout the Bible it is assumed that individuals have responsibility and authority over the property in their possession. For instance, even when Peter was accusing Ananias of being greedy and dishonest, the apostle admitted the man’s right to dispose of his personal property (Acts 5:4). While there is a legitimate basis for government taxation, the simple taking of one’s possessions in order to give them to others is not one of them. Socialism is evil because it inherently involves stealing.

2. Because socialism is an anti-work system. Socialism promises to give a blessed life for free. Today, Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders promises to give free education, free health care, and free vacation time, etc. (Of course, since government does not create wealth, these things are only free as the money to give them is taken from others.)

As I listen to Senator Sanders, I wonder what incentive there would be to work hard. Why would I put myself through the ordeal of discipline, sacrifice, and sweat, much less risk-taking business endeavors, if I can have a wonderful life without working for it?

In contrast to the ethos of socialism, the Bible is explicitly pro-work. Paul writes: “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need” (Eph. 4:28). Here, the apostle not only urges selflessness with one’s possession, but explicitly denounces the socialist ethos. “Work!” the Bible says (2 Thess. 3:10). And on the basis of your own work you should provide for your needs and you should voluntary support the church and others in need.

3. Because socialism concentrates the power to do evil. The Bible’s concern about human sinfulness (and its general approach of de-centralizing power) argues strongly against socialism. Under capitalism, the individual has discretion to dispose of his or her wealth, which in some cases involves vast resources. This may be done virtuously or sinfully depending on the character of the individual owner. Under socialism, however, a small number of government masters has control over almost all of the resources of the entire society. Unless one believes that politicians are inherently more virtuous than private citizens (and where one would get such an idea is a mystery to me), then this concentration of power is certain to work extraordinary amounts of evil. Under capitalism, access to scarce resources is determined by how much money one has, and one’s money generally reflects the market’s value on his or her work contributions. This will sometimes seem unfair, depending on one’s perspective. But under socialism, access to scarce resources is based on government favor. This structure virtually reduces the society to slavery, eventually impoverishes everyone, and unfailingly promotes a culture of corruption.

For these biblically-based reasons, I would urge Christians to refrain from giving praise (and political support) to socialism and candidates who promote it. Alongside the Bible are the lessons of history. To students of such arcane history as the 20th Century, the prospect of socialism is chilling. There is a reason why some Americans want to erect a wall to keep illegal immigrants out, whereas socialist countries have built their walls to keep people in. Socialism is a nightmare to those who actually experience it, whereas capitalism is deemed a paradise – without Christ, a false, materialistic paradise, to be sure – to those trying to get in.

Capitalism does not offer salvation: only Jesus can deliver us from our sins. Socialism, on the other hand, is a manifestly evil system from which we should pray to be delivered.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s Last Stand Against Socialism

Here’s a video of part of a Question time session in the House of Parliament in London, at the end of the Iron Lady’s eleven year tenure as Britain’s Prime Minister. Though it was undeniable that she had led the country into much economic prosperity, she faced accusations that the gap between rich and poor had increased. Here is her response to the charge.

HT: Thirsty Theologian