Why Not Try Socialism?

An interesting post appeared on Facebook today. It presented what appeared to be an editorial from a newspaper of some kind. The article alleged that a college professor, frustrated by her students’ belief that a socialistic form of government would be beneficial, decided to perform an experiment with them. She offered to average all test grades and give each student the same grade. On the first test, some students still studied hard, but many studied little. The average for the class was a B. This pleased the ones who hadn’t put in much effort but displeased the ones who had studied hard. Of course.

On the second test, the class average was a D because those who had been studying saw little reason to put in any great effort, and those who had studied only a little studied even less. By the third test, the class average was an F. The professor allegedly failed the entire class. (At this point I doubt the veracity of the story because if true, the professor would almost certainly have gotten herself terminated.) I commented on Facebook that I wish I had thought of this when I was teaching. I had the same frustration with young people who had no idea how socialism really worked or that it has failed everywhere it has been tried.

One of my friends on Facebook suggested that this “fable,” as he called it, represents a straw man fallacy. I looked up a definition: “A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be ‘attacking a straw man.’" For this to be a fallacy then, the professor’s argument, in this case by demonstration, would have to be false. I don’t think it is. The goal of socialism is equal outcomes for everyone. The professor’s experiment accomplished this. I think her “argument” was that in the beginning, lazy people love socialism, but in the end, no one likes it.

The other aspect of a straw man fallacy is that it doesn’t address or refute the subject of the argument. In this case, it seems that the subject of the argument was whether socialism is a beneficial form of government for all citizens in a society. The professor’s experiment demonstrated clearly that one of the main tenets of socialism, equality of outcomes, will ultimately bring about the collapse of society. If we replace the professor’s grade averaging with income and opportunity averaging, we have only to look at the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, or any other country that has tried socialistic policies to see what happens. When was the last time you read a story about hordes of people trying to get into Cuba or Venezuela to enjoy the benefits of socialism?

I think the main problem with socialism is completely ignored by most supporters. As pointed out in the article on Facebook, the government cannot give its citizens anything that it hasn’t taken from other citizens. The government does not make money; it takes money. The only source of income for the federal government is taxes and fees taken from the citizenry. I struggled to make my college freshmen understand that. They wanted the “free” college education that Bernie Sanders was campaigning for. They wanted “free” health care. I told them I would be retiring soon, and I would be sending them the bill for my “free” health care; I asked if they would mind paying. They soundly refused. I gave them the bad news: they would be paying because Medicare would be their responsibility and my benefit. I think some of them got the point. (For a great summary read “Why Socialism Always Fails.”)

Where is Heaven in this argument? Just this: Paul told the Thessalonians, “Anyone does not work neither shall he eat.” The Proverbs are full of admonishments to work for what one needs and discouragements toward those who are lazy. There is also throughout the Scripture the concept of those who have material goods helping those who do not. My contention is that this is meant to be a personal, faith-based type of assistance, not a government handout.

In my view, it is the church’s responsibility to help the poor; it is the government’s responsibility to maintain a level playing field so that everyone has the opportunity to be successful. The minute the government steps into the field of welfare for its citizens, problems are inevitable. Besides the fact that fraud is an automatic result because of man’s sinful nature, an attitude of entitlement soon drives large numbers of people who could support themselves to seek the “free” money. I quote Adrian Rogers, “When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation.”

Also, I won’t claim a direct cause-effect relationship, but I see a definite correlation between socialism and suppression of religious freedom. This may only be a coincidence, but it stands to reason that the enemy of our souls would get behind any form of human government that so nicely feeds our human weaknesses. I agree with the supposition of C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters that the enemy will do whatever possible to make humans miserable. Socialism has proven very effective at that chore.

Several years ago, I wrote “Obama Isn't the Problem” to highlight the issue of Americans, especially the young, being receptive to policies that lean toward socialism. That post has been one of the most widely read of all my articles. I am weighing in again because it is evident that the real problem still exists. I have made my political position clear on numerous occasions, but I must say that while the Democrat party is more supportive of policies that are socialistic, an increasing number of Republicans are sliding down the slippery slope. I understand; it is hard to resist the temptation to garner votes by offering “free” stuff to the electorate. I just wish there was a stronger pull in Washington to get back to the principles of industry and personal responsibility that were at the core of our nation’s original success. Principles which are, by the way, biblically supported.