Christian Nationalism Is A Marxist Christianity

Being a Christian Fundamentalist who politically leans toward Marx, I am interested in what other Christians write about Marx and Marxism. The most balanced view of Marx and Marxism came from Martin Luther King Jr in his book: Stride Toward Freedom.

In that book, written in the 1950s, King called Marxism evil and yet he agreed with the former Archbishop William Temple who called Marxism a 'Christian heresy.' By that, both Temple and King saw in Marx and Marxism concerns that every Christian should have but those concerns were joined with beliefs and practices that no Christian should ever accept. 

Contrast that with religiously conservative Christianity's current reviews of Marx and Marxism and some of its derivatives today. For most of today's conservative Christian reviews of Marxism and some of its derivatives paint all negative portraits of Marx and Marxism in that they present it as something to totally reject. It's like those reviewing Marx and Marxism today always take a Jenga approach to interpreting both. That is they look to disprove the one presupposition or tenet that would cause the tower of Marx, Marxism, and its derivatives to totally collapse. The attitude that those religiously conservative Christian reviewers of Marx and Marxism have reminded me of a quote by Martin Luther King Jr when he spoke against the Vietnam War:

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.'

And so if we replaced the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank,  some religiously conservative Christians could have their names inserted into that sentence when they talk about Marx and Marxism.

However, a subset of these religiously conservative Christians are now seeking to respond to their current circumstances as Marx told the proletariat to respond to the bourgeoisie. And we can call that group of Christians 'Marxist Christians.' The group I am referring to here are Christian Nationalists.

Though Marx and Marxism cannot be reduced to a single tenet, its most foundational part, as stated in The Communist Manifesto, is the overthrow of the oppressor class, which was the bourgeoisie, by the oppressed, the proletariat. It is because Marx and Marxism taught that the only way to eradicate the oppression he witnessed was for the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and to take the bourgeoisie's place as rulers over society.

And so now we enter today's Post Christendom's, Post Modern world where secular liberalism holds sway over American society and past Christian "freedoms," like the right to discriminate against some who are different, are not only threatened, but might become a reason for American society to marginalize religiously conservative Christians. Here we should note that secular liberalism isn't concerned with how Christians live their private lives; it is concerned with when Christians show intolerance to others in society. 

It is now time, according to the words of too many Christian leaders, influencers, and pew sitters, when we can expect to be oppressed by secular liberalism's influence on American society. For the talk by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians is that if we are not being oppressed now, it won't be long when we will be. After all, that is what the New Testament says will happen to believers. And so what is an oppressed, religiously conservative Christian to do? According to Christian Nationalists, our "biblically mandated" duty is to overthrow secular liberalism with its democracy, equality, and pluralism and  Make America Christian Again (or MACA). 

The above provides the reason for why we can call Christian Nationalism a Marxist Christianity. By that I mean that Marxism, with its talk of the oppressed vs the oppressor and the proletariat dictatorship, is modifying how Christianity view itself and acts. BTW, Marxist Christianity stands in contrast to Christian Marxism because with Christian Marxism,  Christianity would modify how Marxism would function. And the reason why we can call Christian Nationalism a Marxist Christianity because it relies on the same model of thought that Marx and Marxism used: overthrowing the oppression of one's enemy by gaining political control over them. Our oppressor, according to Christian Nationalism, is the reign and influence of secular liberalism.  Therefore,  the only way that the oppression of secular liberalism can be resolved is if we religiously conservative Christians replace secular liberalism as the ruler over our nation. And the only way we can fix the problems that have been caused by secular liberalism is if we, not me personally, religiously conservative Christian seize political control over the nation either by democratic processes or other means--the January 6th Insurrection was an example of the attempt to grab political control through other means. By seeking to seize near total, if not absolute, control, Christian Nationalists are proclaiming to the nation that only we 'can fix it,' whatever it is.

Today's Christian Nationalism is ironic in more than one way. First, by claiming to be law and order people and claiming to be the rightful interpreters of The Constitution, Christian Nationalists have rallied behind a convicted felon and a man who inspired an unconstitutional overthrow of a duly elected government. 

The second irony is that by embracing the oppressed status, either because of present experience or anticipation of the future, and using that status as a main reason for seeking control, Christian Nationalism is practicing what it accuses ideologies such as CRT of employing: emulating Marx's oppressor vs oppressed worldview. It matters not if religiously conservative Christians are barely persecuted here in America. It is that anticipation of the future which is deeply shared by Christian Nationalists and even by others. 

And yet another irony is that while proclaiming itself to be a present or future oppressed class, Christian Nationalists are seeking enough power so that they can return to oppressing select groups of people. Because I lived during part of the Jim Crow era, I grew up during a time when many, but not all, religiously conservative Christianity persecuted blacks. And they used the Bible to defend their actions. Now Christian Nationalism seems to be promising to send the LGBT community back to the margins of society should they gain control and they are using the Scriptures to defend their attempts. 

Christian Nationalism is concerned about God's kingship over the earth. But it mistakenly believes that God's kingship can be politically thwarted by people. Such a belief either minimizes or denies God's plan and power. Because God is all powerful, He works out His plan regardless of our sins. In fact, He uses our sins to work out His will. That was the lesson taught by the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. And it is the lesson that is taught in the crucifixion of Christ for the sins of those who believe in Him. In both cases, Pharaoh's initial refusals to let Moses's people go and Christ's crucifixion, it seemed like God was defeated. But He never was in danger of losing control. And that was shown when Pharaoh finally let the Hebrews go and when he and his army were killed in the Red Sea as well as when Christ rose from the dead. Those examples show that God doesn't need our political help to be king of the world. For He is already king over all that He created.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 14, 2023

 June 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blog article that rightfully criticizes Stephen Wolfe's view of Christian Nationalism and Kevin DeYoung's view of cultural Christianity. He also commented on Marxism. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I fully agree with Clark when he oppose Wolfe's Christian Nationalism and questions DeYoung's cultural Christianity. He provides sound reasons for his disagreements with them. But when he argues for Natural Law, which in other posts he has claimed is summarized by the 2nd Table of the Law, isn't Clark also vying for some sort of cultural Christianity? For in using the 2nd Table of the Law as a summary for Natural Law, he is promoting a Christian understanding of Natural Law.

When describing how we should react to the LGBT rights, Clark doesn't seem to fully notice that nature might be giving us mixed messages. For same-sex behavior (SSB) has been observed in 1,500 species of animals where SSB has produced positive result for at least some of those species. Clark doesn't include that when he also talks about how attributing homosexuality to genetic or biological causes have failed. In addition, there are physiological factors that contribute to gender dysphoria of which Clark seems unaware. And so it seems that Clark's attribution of these conditions to fallen nature refers to our sinful nature. Thus, we are dealing with a Christian theological understanding of the physical world which would be imposed on those from the LGBT community. And because it is a theological understanding, that understanding is incomplete because even scientists are not sure of all of the physical factors involved in either homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Resisting or opposing the equality for the LGBT community based on a Christian understanding of natural law promotes an imposition of Christian morals on the LGBT community in society. And so his use of natural law here would put him in the same league as those who call for a cultural Christianity.

Finally American conservative Christian theologians must realize that commenting on Marx and Marxism is not in their wheelhouse. Why? It is because they can only interpret Marx and Marxism from an antithetical capitalist viewpoint. That makes it difficult for them to identify a real Marxist regime. And Clark seems content on not relying on any Marxists for input. For if he read Gorbachev, he would acknowledge that authoritarian regimes that the Soviet Union starting with Stalin, Red China, North Korea and so forth were never Marxists to begin with. If he used Chomsky or the left Marxists of Lenin's time, he would also exclude Lenin's regime as being Marxist. 

It is good that Clark rejects Wolfe's Christian Nationalism and that he questions DeYoung's cultural Christianity. But he is unaware of the similarities that his own position has with at least the cultural Christianity of transformationalists like DeYoung. And one of the reasons for Clark's lack of awareness is his sources for the above topics are inadequate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 13

David Deavel and his reposted article that uses an article called Woke Capitalism Is Capitalism as an introduction to determine whether Capitalism is woke. Though Deavel answers in the negative, the information he uses to answer the question is wholly inadequate. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

To determine whether Capitalism is woke, one only needs to consider its history in this country. For example, our labor history, and even the present, does not show that Capitalism is woke. Our labor history is full of blood and violence by capitalists who, in an effort to maximize profits, treated workers horribly until they were forced to do otherwise. Under Capitalism, businesses used to employed children in, what for them were, dangerous settings. They overworked their employees while underpaying them, and they used violence and the law to silence dissent. See, Capitalism's stakeholders consist of more than just the consumers.

Throughout the history of American Capitalism, businesses have polluted the environment and have tried to escape  accountability for doing so. Under Capitalism, corporationss have offshored jobs regardless of how it affected its employees and their communities. And they did so in order to maximize profits. Under Capitalism, corporations have sought to garner government business with the military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industrial complex, and the prison industrial complex, just the name some examples, in order to maximize profits. Under Capitalism, corporations have used lobbyists to gain favors with government officials in order to reduce or eliminate both their taxes and regulations governing how they will treat employees and customers. And they do so in order to maximize profits.

The above list is a partial list of corporate activities that are anti-woke, rather than woke. How is it that Capitalism can be considered woke? Is it because they are now using their power in order to promote equality for the LGBT community? Here, we need to look at what is being protested. Again, we should remember how businesses once used their power to comply and even promote Jim Crow laws and culture. We should remember how before a recent court decision, homosexuals did not have any legal protection from harassment at work or even dismissal from their jobs in the majority of states. 

The problem with the above article in answering the question of whether Capitalism is woke is that its scope of corporate activities used in answering the question is very small. In addition,  the above article seems to reduce Capitalism solely to what it offers consumers. The stakeholders of Capitalism include far more groups of people than just a business's customers. We could even count the environment as a stakeholder of Capitalism. And the above article left out the basic motivation and ethic that is promoted and practiced under Capitalism: the maximization of profits. Does that sound woke to you? 

In the above article, it's not Deavel's answer that is the problem, it is his method. His method is totally inadequate to adequately answer the question.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 9, 2018

May 7

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that talks about where the Church is heading today. This was posted in Heidelblog.

Clark has a legitimate point in noting how past errors reincarnate themselves for the Church today. But he also demonstrates the fatal flaw of many conservatives: that they look solely to the past to understand and respond to today's world. And just as narcissism's fatal flaw is elevating the present over the past so that those in the present have everything to teach and nothing to learn from those from the past, many conservatives elevate a set of past times over the present so that those from the past would have everything to teach and nothing to learn from those modern times.

Where is the Church heading? To answer that question in America, one would expect to have to address the issue of activism and equality for the LGBT community in society. One would expect to have to address social justice and environmental issues. One would expect to have noted how the dominant branch of the American Church, which is a blend of conservative Catholicism and Protestantism, either supports all or a subset of those with wealth and power as the dominant branch of the Church did in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain. One would expect to have to address those subjects along with what Clark addressed.

Young adults face the biggest challenge in the Church today and yet that isn't mentioned here. What is their challenge? It comes from their elders who have taught them that these young people must choose between believing in salvation by grace alone through faith alone and working for the kind of social justice that the Old Testament prophets spoke of. What many of these young adult Christians do with the apparent 'Sophie's Choice' given to them by many of their elders will determine where the Church is heading. And whether they will find a faithful way of keeping the Gospel while learning from the Old Testament prophets depends on whether they recognize the choice being given to them by their elders is a false dichotomy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 8

To Joe Carter and his blogpost denouncing Marx and Marxism because of the approximately 100 million deaths allegedly attributed to Marx by some Conservatives. That post appeared in the Acton blog.

Articles like the one above and the one cited only show a conservative, opportunistic approach to Marx. For American conservatives are all too eager to trash Marx so as to present their own nation as the paragon of virtue. Besides the fact that Gregg, whose article Carter cites, is grossly mistaken in attributing Hitler's rampage to Marx and somewhat understandably mistaken in attributing the deaths from reigns of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot to Marx, he ignores the fixed number of deaths that would have occurred anyway because Marx, and those who claimed to have followed him, was reacting, rather than encouraging a first strike, to tyranny and killing.

Would Russia have left WW I as early as it did if there was no October, 1917 Revolution. Remember that the February, 1917 Revolution produced the Provisional Authority government that was controlled by the Capitalists in Russia. And, out of self-interest, they favored continuing Russia's participation in WW I despite the hardships such participation caused on the Russian people. Or we could take Guevera and Castro on Cuba for another example. It wasn't until the Cuban Revolution that the US government considered pulling their support from the corrupt and brutal government of Batista. Or we could go to Nicaragua and note how the US supported the Somoza government before the Sandinistas overthrew that government. There are other places we could go as well.

Or we could ask Carter and Gregg this question: How is it that Marxist revolutions are considered murderous while the American Revolution was not? After all, one of the reasons for wanting independence from Great Britain was so that the colonists could expand westward. And that mean dislocation and death for Native Americans.

We could also ask how many deaths could be blamed on Jesus Christ and Adam Smith if we follow the same logic that Carter and Gregg have? After all, how many indigenous people in the new world lost homes and even their lives to those claiming to be Christians? This would include not just the British-based colonizalization of North America, but the Spanish conquests of Central and South America as well. And how many indigenous people from Africa and Asia lost their lives due to the Christian European empires? How many people lost their lives in the American interventions to help business reported on by former Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler? Or how many people lost their lives from the various kinds of US interventions following WW II? How many people lost their lives as a result of regime changes that the US instigated in Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Greece, Chilé, Nicaragua, and so on. And how many millions of Vietnamese lost their lives to American bombings? And how many people have lost their lives because of the almost 40-year-old war started in Afghanistan right at the end of the Carter Administration?  Should we blame Jesus Christ and Adam Smith for those deaths or is such attribution to them ludicrous?

There are certainly things Marx wrote that are wrong and have caused harmful effects. But crediting him with 100 million deaths shows a lack of knowledge and understanding as to what Marxism is and isn't. For if Christianity can have false believers and Republicans can have RINOs, why are we so compelled to assume that each murderous leader who calls himself a Marxist is really a Marxist?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the use of a Social Psychology experiment to claim that there is no settled science. Here, he is echoing the sentiments of Palanyi This appeared in Heidelblog.

From one social Psychology experiment, Clark's conclusion is that there is no "settled science'? That is what the pairing of the telling of the above Social Psychology experiment and the title Clark gave to this blogpost implies But if there is no settled science, then would it not be true that there is nothing we can know that is true from science? That means that we could wake up some day and discover that the earth is flat rather than round, that the sun revolves around the earth and not the other way around? And then the next day, we could learn just the opposite is the case.
If there is no settled science then we e could learn that none of the vaccines we've taken work or that some of the medicines we take don't work without diseases changing. And we could learn that gravity does not exist. And not only that, we could learn that water does not freeze at 32 degrees and that ice doesn't form at the top of any containment of water.

I could go on but there is settled science for those saying there is none. That science comes from the study of economics and supply and demand and how neoliberal Capitalism is the best economic system ever. And we know that that approach to economics is the only settled science people who say there is no settled science  believe in. That is because there is a particular context for saying there is no settled science. That context is the subject of climate change.

For if there is no doubt that people are contributing to changing the climate of the earth in ways that threaten our descendants, then our American way of life and thus how many of our businesses operate must change. We might be compelled to live and work in a far less individualistic and more collective ways. We might be compelled to be far less materialistic in how we live. We might have to change our economic system despite the settled science its supporters insist on. But perhaps the fear of change, because one is happy with the current status quo, is the biggest factor in saying that there is never any settled science.

Finally, Clark should know better than to attach the above title to the story of this Social Psychological experiment. In terms of logic, he is trying to prove an absolute rule with a single example with an uncountable sample space. Such an attempt is severely logically flawed. For when trying to prove absolute rules, like there is no settled science, only one counterexample is needed to disprove them. And what is distressing here is that Clark seems to be engaging in a ruse in saying something about climate change without disclosing his intent in citing the experiment described above. What he wants to say about climate change is that we don't know for sure that it is happening and thus we don't have to change. And that indicates whether he is satisfied enough with the status quo so as to not want it to change despite the unspecified future suffering many will experience.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Dylan Pahman and his blogpost on his celebrating the possible closing of Barnes & Noble, and other big chains, due to its inability to compete with Amazon. This appeared in the Acton blog.

http://blog.acton.org/archives/101493-dont-save-barnes-noble.html

Pahman misses the big picture here. For the big picture isn't about one monopoly replacing ma-and-pa stores or one monopoly replacing another or the roles of regulations and competition in the business world. Nor is it about how conservatives tend to reduce economics to commerce with its redefinition of the concept of stakeholder to consist of only providers and consumers. Rather, the big story is in how extreme individualism that contains no concern for externals destroys not only other people lives, but eventually our own nest too. For this growing trend to buy more and more from Amazon is about the shoppers' convenience and ability to avoid dealing with other people. And what is ironic is that Pahman celebrates the success of Amazon's business venture which includes the cornering of markets served by Amazon. For with that cornering comes the centralization of control of those markets. And centralization of power is suppose to be an enemy to conservatism--at least that is the case when it comes to government.

The problem with extreme individualism, besides the fact that it is suppose to be against the Scriptures, is that such individualism spreads to other areas of life. If I am not suppose to be concerned with who suffers from the purchasing decisions I make, then should I be concerned with the cuts in my taxes even though those cuts lead to the reduction of social safety nets and/or an unmanageable national debt that will force austerity on those who are most vulnerable? If I can benefit from my nation's business regulations that protect neither other people nor the environment, then should I care about who will suffer from the lack of protection those regulations would have provided? If my nation's foreign policies help benefit me in terms of living the life I want, should I be concerned about the victims of those policies?

As we focus more and more on how we individually benefit from our decisions, we feel morally justified in the decisions we make regardless of who suffers because of our decisions. We become immune to the pain others suffer because of the benefits we enjoy. And that is fine for us until those with more power and control act the same way as we are. And that is called karma.

Capitalism And The Last Temptation In The WIlderness

In Matthew 4, after fasting for 40 days Jesus is tempted by the devil. In Christ's last temptation, the devil proposes a trade, he will give Christ all of the kingdoms in the world if Christ will worship him (click here). Christ knew to reject the deal, the question is, do we?

Free Market Capitalism tells us that we can have the most prosperty possible if we bow down and worship ourselves. For in Free Market Capitalism, self-interest is our strength, our energy, our conscience and our guide. And the question becomes, how did such a temptation become a political-economic philosophy in a "Christian" country? Before answering that question, we must define our terms.

The concept, though not the term, Free Market Capitalism was proposed by Adam Smith in response to the merchantilism of his time. In merchantilism, imports were restricted while exports were promoted in order to strengthen a nation's economy. However, Smith saw the result of merchantilism in England differently; he saw it as a manipulation of the economy for the benefit of a few, that is for those around whom the economy was revolving. Rather than orient the economy around a select few who were providing services, Smith proposed that England would become wealthier if the economy was oriented around the consumer. Here, there was also some of the fine print that should have been listed as conditions for guarantee of the promise of relying on self-interest. For example, if businesses engaged in fair competition for the sale of their products and services, self-interest would enlighten the decisions of both businesses and consumers. This condition implied a laissez-faire relationship between the government and business. 

Those enlightened decisions would produce a healthy economy whose tide would lift everybody's boat. That is because as we purchase what we wish, we stimulate the economy including employment. And as customers demand products that give them the best value for the money spent, companies compete for their business by finding ways of producing newer and better products in more efficient ways. And thus, if businesses and customers care solely or primarily about themselves, by them looking for the greatest value or the highest profit, society will reach the highest state of happiness possible. 

So, while shopping, self-interest would cause me to focus solely on my purchasing power. And that purchasing power increases as I get more of a product for less money. So suppose I can buy 10 teeshirts for x dollars from one store while I can only buy 5 teeshirts for x dollars from another store. I will buy from the first store because I am concerned solely about getting the best deal for myself. In so doing, everything ends up being kosher for the economy. At least that is how the theory goes. 

There are a number of ways to question this rather simplistic theory by Smith. Of course, we first need to give Smith his due for the concerns of his times and what he was reacting to. He was reacting to the manipulation of the economy for the benefit of a few. And when questioning his theory, we should not feel compelled to reject everything he proposed. However, we still need to question the theory. And we can do so in two ways. First, we can look for the side effects to this reliance of self-interest by both consumers and businesses that would make Free Trade Capitalism either less desireable or unsustainable. And second, we can look to see how well the theory is working. 

One of the side effects noted in Smith's Free Trade Capitalism in how such an economy changes the personal values of the participants and society. For example, Karl Marx noted that such an economy reduces men's connections to each other to that of seeing what we get out of each other especially in terms of financial profit. In fact, he saw this changing of connections even affecting the family. He also was concerned about how even some who were self-employed could become wage-slaves of the Bourgeoisie (see pages 15-16 in here). We should note here that the Bourgeoisie were those who not only held private property, but they were able to use that ownership of property to control others. This control could take place on both a smaller scale, such as being the owner or boss of employees in a business, or a larger scale, such as having an inordinate influence on those in government. We should note here that Marx's first concern was about how one smaller group of people controlled others and thus came the term "wage-slave" for those who were employed by the Bourgeoisie and were paid an hourly wage.

This reduction of our relationships to that of using each other for profit or advantage dehumanizes us by making us all into objects of gain. This relegation of people into objects leads to exploitation and abuse. And from consumers, this demotion of people leads to apathy as customers become concerned solely about what they are getting for themselves while not caring about the plight of those whose labor made the products or, as today's world dictates, the environment. It is at this point that consumers ask Cain's post-crime, rhetorical question, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Our reaction to all of this could be to consider the source. After all, Marx was antagonistic to Capitalism and we all know what happened to his theories.  That is we could ignore Marx except for the fact that Martin Luther King Jr., despite his adamant rejection of Marxism's basic tenets, agreed with Marx's comments on the problem with the primacy of the profit motive in Capitalism. The place of this motive in society causes people to be more invested in "making a living than making a life" and judging success by the goods one accumulates rather than how one helps and serves others (see page 94 in here). 

At this point we need to ask the following of a political-economic system that promises us happiness by focusing on ourselves, is a such a society that is based on self-interest sustainable? And we could also ask, is such a society desirable?

Is a laissez-faire, Free Trade Capitalism possible? We could answer this question in a number of ways. Logically speaking, is it reasonable to expect those with wealth, ability and who are governed by self-interest, to tolerate an economic system that relies on fair competition for the benefit of the consumer? Or does it make more sense to expect such parties to press for every advantage to increase profits? Or we could look at both American History and its present to note how many times corporations have paid government to get into bed with them. Since WWII, America has been involved in over 50 interventions. Many of these interventions have targeted democracies for the benefit of American businesses. Or we could note how many times big business has sought advantages and privileges within our own country. So we have to ask whether the American economy is the embodiment of what Smith proposed? And if it isn't, is such an economy possible?

We might also ask if we really want to live in a society where everybody is just out for themselves. My fellow Christians who are politically conservative will object by saying such an economy was meant to run by principled people such as themselves. Here we have to ask, doesn't reducing all interests to self-interest contradict being principle-minded and what the Bible teaches and thus to embrace such a political-economic system is to stray from sound principles and the Scriptures?

The fault in Smith's theory is not the existence of self-interest but the belief that there is a system in which its participants only need  to rely on self-interest, or perhaps even greed, for energy while believing it can correct for the toxic emissions that are sure to result in a place where everybody is out just for themselves.

R.C.Sproul Vs Martin Luther King On Karl Marx

We've all heard the name of Karl Marx, but do we really know what his beliefs were? If we equate the Soviet Union and its kind of government and economy with Marx, we will claim to have known him, but our claims will be delusional.

To know Marx, one must read him, and that can be a challenge considering one's knowledge of history and the issues. But he is worth reading just to know who he really is.

Two people who have read some of his works and have commented on them are R.C. Sproul Sr. and Martin Luther King Jr. The bulk of Sproul's available comment's can be found in his book, The Consequence Of Ideas (click here). King's review of Marx can be found at this link starting with page 92.  

The difference in the reviews stems from their views of Capitalism. Sproul shows that he is a product of Capitalist ideology. It is not that he doesn't criticize Capitalism; but it is that the criticisms he expresses, at least in his review of Marx, are concerning aberrations of Capitalism, not its principles. King, on the other hand, is able to look at Marx from both a nonCapitalist position as well as Capitalist one. Thus King has a broader perspective of Marx and Communism while most of Sproul's concerns are, for the most part, parochial.

Sproul first gives background information on Marx including pertinent information on perhaps the beginning of Marx's rejection of religion. Then Sproul talks about some of Marx's views on labor and the Industrial Revolution. From there Sproul describes Marx's views on man's alienation. Interspersed with these remarks are Sproul's defense of or comparing Marx's views with Capitalism.

According to Sproul, Marx saw the Industrial Revolution as putting our humanity at risk. However, Sproul says little about Marx's view of the marketplace which, under Capitalism, was profound in how it changed man's relation with others, and pervasive in that the markets went global and those countries that did not welcome the markets put themselves risk of being left behind.  In addition, Sproul didn't mention how Marx saw the Bourgeoisie's use of the markets and production as making society and our social relationships volatile because they were constantly changing.

In addition, Spoul left out the details as to how the worker and his labor became a commodity to the owner of capital or business owner. It is because as the worker is paid by the unit, his labor becomes like all commodities that are paid for by the unit. This makes the worker disposable, as well as his community which is supported by what he earns, because if a business owner can find cheaper labor, the current worker can be let go just as a business owner might buy a certain commodity from another vendor if that vendor was selling the commodity, like sugar, at a cheaper price.

As Sproul describes how Marx sees man as being separated from the "fruit of his labor" because of the lack of ownership, Sproul goes into a defense of Capitalism. He talks about how even executives are not owners unless they possess shares of stock in the company and that even low-wage earners can also be owners by owning stock. At this point, we have to ask if what Marx emphasized about the need for worker control has totally escaped Sproul's attention. For owning stock per se doesn't solve the problem Marx saw because it doesn't give workers control. That control is for those with wealth who can afford to own a large percentage of shares. So owning a few shares of stock does not change the status of the worker. In addition, as Chomsky has pointed out, a worker who owns stock in the company in his own company must root against his own best interests. This is because one of the ways a worker can gain a bigger return on the stock he owns is if the company cuts his wages so that it makes a bigger profit.

Sproul extols on how, in Capitalism, one's wealth works for the owner just as the land works for the farmer. And though here, he is talking about owning stock, he also then portrays the actual owner of a business as someone who deserves what rewards he/she can take because of the risk he/she is taking. That is because a high percentage of businesses fail after so many years. When this happens, the owner can lose everything. As true as that is, Sproul says nothing about how workers risk their future by devoting themselves to companies that could fail.

Sproul also remarks on Marx describing how man is separated from himself because his labor is "forced." For if man doesn't work for a business, he can no longer exist. Sproul goes on to say that, according to Marx, man is also alienated because he loses his creative freedom. 

Finally, Sproul describes Marx's final alienation as a separation from others because his labor if for and is owned by others. 

In commenting  about how Capitalism divides people into the owners and the workers, Sproul is quick to comment on how Marx failed to see the emergence of the Middle Class. This is an odd comment simply because 1) Marx mentions the Middle Class multiple times in his writings, and 2) America's past shows that part of its Middle Class came about through harsh and sometimes violent labor struggles where the police often sided with business owners. Labor struggles are not a part of Capitalism but are praised by Marx. In addition, Marx saw different levels of classes rather than just the rich and the poor.

Sproul goes on to describe what he saw as Marx's failed attempt to provide an alternative for how value is determined in a Capitalist system. Then Sproul almost chides Marx for predicting that workers would suffer losses in a Capitalist system. Sproul attributes this to believing a "myth" that says that one can only get rich at the expense of others. Considering that we live in a world of finite resources with a marketplace that revolves around competition, it is difficult to not see any truth in the "myth."

Now we should note that Sproul's book came out in 2000. Since then, we had an economic collapse where millions of people lost both jobs and their homes and most of the recovery has been enjoyed by the rich. And it seems that Sproul had not noticed that the wages for the bottom 90% of the population have stagnated since 1973. In addition, Sproul seems unaware of the laborers who are invisible stakeholders in the Capitalist endeavor. These are those who work in foreign sweatshops for meager pay and in horrid conditions because of the lack of government regulations or enforcement. 

What Sproul also seems unaware of is how American intervention has led to proxy rulers who have given America cheap access to the raw resources of other countries. Though Sproul correctly gives Marx points for foreseeing the practice of Crony Capitalism, he seems to be blind to the extent that Crony Capitalism exists and that the profit motive might make any other form of Capitalism impossible. At this point, we might ask Sproul, if Crony Capitalism is the real source of our prosperity and greater wealth, is such Capitalism then justified because of its results?

It isn't until the very end where Sproul rightly states that some of the basic tenets of Marxism are contrary to the Bible. He then adds that Marx's goal was the abolishment of private property and yet Sproul seems unaware of why or what that meant. Marx's contention was that private property, whether personal or business, was often used to control others and if one breaks that control, one has, in an ideal sense, abolished private property. Marx gives some states in America as examples of where private property was so abolished in his essay, On The Jewish Question (click here).

So, though Sproul can give a competent and useful summary of some of what Marx said, his analysis is limited because of his inability to step outside of the system in which he resides and benefits from.

Now compare the analysis above with that of Martin Luther King Jr.'s. King immediately condemns Marx's materialistic reductionism as a rejection of God, his ends justifies the means relativism because the "ends are preexistent in the means,"  and Communism's totalitarianism. Though we should note that not all who are on the Left here see that totalitarianism as representing Marx and Socialism. King goes on to condemn Marxism because of its blindness to how life is "individual and personal." That goes back to the existence of God and man being made in the image of God. 

However, King was also able to see some of the problems Marx saw in Capitalism--this is in contrast to Sproul who could only see abuses in Capitalism. King saw that just as Marxism had filtered out the individual to focus on the collective, Capitalism did the same to collective and the social in order to focus on the individual. In contrast to that King saw the need for a synthesis that included both the collective and the individual which is what he might call a mixing of the best of both worlds.

In addition, King saw Capitalism as being as materialistic as Communism--what could one expect when Capitalism's claim to fame is in the amount of prosperity it has brought to the world. King saw the materialism in Capitalism as being as dangerous as that which is in Marxism.

Finally, King also understood the appeal of Marxism and Communism. For all of his heresies, according to King, Marx was concerned about the sufferings of the "underprivileged." That isn't the concern of Capitalism. Apologists for Capitalism see it lifting everybody up as a side effect. But that isn't what has happened everywhere in the past or is taking place today. 

If we doubt Marx when he associated wars with Capitalism, all we need to do is to read former Marine Corps General Smedley Butler as he wrote about American interventions before WWII (click here and there) and historian William Blum as he documents the 50+ post WWII interventions (click here). Then if we look at wages, we see how globalization has lowered them for both low-skilled as well as technical jobs by both increasing the labor supply and by expanding the labor market to where there are fewer, if any, protective regulations for workers. We can also examine how Capitalism has ravaged the environment especially in its hunt for energy. Visits to some fracking sites as well as surveying the areas where mountaintop removal is used to mine for coal can sometimes give us living pictures of miniature apocalypses.

Both King and Marx saw Capitalism as reducing relationships to one of "self-interest" and the "profit motive." For King, this makes us thing-oriented rather than person-oriented. But the moral of the story here is about perspective. When one cannot look at one's own system from the outside and adequately criticize it, one's view of the world suffers from a kind of tunnel vision. So much of the world becomes obscure to us because of our focus. And this is the key difference between King's and Sproul's reviews Marx. 

King can both criticize and commend Marx from a nonCapitalist viewpoint. Sproul's attachment to Capitalism prevents him from seeing many of Marx's detriments and contributions outside of how it relates to Capitalism. The result is that King can see the strengths and weaknesses of both Capitalism and Communism. In contrast to King, Sproul is somewhat like the Pharisee in Jesus' parable of the two men praying. Sproul can both thank God that he is not a Marxist and praise God for all of Capitalism's benefits. But remember that it wasn't the Pharisee who went home justified.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For Feb 19, 2014

Below are comments made to conservative blogs which were rejected by the blog moderators. The links to the blogs are provided.

Feb 12


To R. Scott Clark and his quotation blogpost on the abolition of private property from the Communist Manifesto. This quotation occurred on Heidelblog


But that comment was made within a context. And that context concerned itself with capital and class warfare. Marx was not talking about the individual private property of the proletariat for he followed the above statement declaring that the bourgeois had already abolished that property. At this point, we might want to remember what was declared in Occupy Wall Street's "Declaration of the Occupation Of New York City." One of grievances expressed was: 

"They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage."

For the above quote and other grievances, see http://www.nycga.net/resources/documents/declaration/

A study of Marxism and communism will point out that individual private property for consumption was allowed for and existed. So the question is, why have the above quote by itself? Why not include some details that would help the reader understand more precisely what Marx meant?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 14

To R. Scott Clark and his quotation from the Communist Manifesto. This quotation occurred in Heidelblog

Here's a suggestion. In stead of just offering quotes, why not encourage people to read the part of the work in which the quote comes if not the whole work so things are not read out of context.

For the Communist Manifesto see

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto

You previously quoted from Marx's "German Ideology," which is actually know as "A Critique Of German Ideology." This can be found at 

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf

Personally, I don't agree with all of Marx's solutions. However, I believe his analysis of Capitalism can be quite accurate and especially of today's neoliberal capitalism. 

Finally, our loyalty to capitalism or socialism or any other ism can serve as an indicator of whether our allegiances are more tribal or are more objective and then possibly Scriptural.     

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 15

To R. Scott Clark on quoting George C. Watson as saying that the Nazis were socialists. This book comes from a quote for a book by George C. Watson. This occurred on the Heidelblog

No, the Nazis were not socialists. In fact, the people who were first persecuted and imprisoned by the Nazis were socialists and communists. And one of the reasons why the Nazis persecuted the Jews was over the confusion of the Jews with the Bolsheviks. Hitler looked at Russia and its "socialism"  as its mortal enemy. 

The basic tenet of Socialism is worker-controlled work places where the workers would democratically control the means of production. This is why even Lenin and Trotsky were considered to be part of the Bourgeoisie by some Marxists because they favored a Bourgeoisie dictatorship (see http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm). That Hitler wanted to eliminate democracy from the beginning is another proof that Hitler and the Nazis were not socialists. Though Marx could tolerate totalitarian rule at the beginning, for a country to become socialist, it would have to resort to democracy in the workplace and in the country. A foundational part of Socialism is extending democracy to the workplace. Hitler was adamantly opposed to democracy.

But let's go further. Another basic tenet of socialism, at least what Marx proposed, was the elimination of private property among the Bourgeoisie. Hitler preserved Bourgeoisie private property especially since industry leaders were instrumental in ushering him into power. Another difference was that while Marxists believed in the international, Hitler was a strict nationalists who campaigned on the restoration of the country and traditional values.

I've seen the attempts to tie the Hitler and the Nazis with the Left before. And in essence, it's not the label that shows whether one is a Socialist, it is the concepts that one promotes and follows. The belief in traditional values and hyper nationalism with the belief in country first  is more related to certain forms of conservatism. Heck, it is the traditional campaign platform of the Republican Party and it opposes the Marx's Revolution. 

Another Conservative trademark here is the association of Socialism with big gov't. Again, the control of the workplace by the workers is the  first tenet of Socialism. That countries like the Soviet Union saw the need for control by a vanguard shows that they were socialist in name, but not in concept.

So the real question is, how honest do conservatives want to be regarding socialism?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 18

to Joe Carter on his blogpost that is part 3 of a series talking about what liberal evangelicals should know about the economic views of conservative evangelicals. This post appeared on the Acton blog

Carter makes two points here. The first point is that Conservatives recognize structural injustices and their effects on the poor. The second point discusses the immorality of the ever increasing federal debt. Will discuss the second point first.

Do conservative evangelicals know that there are Leftists who agree that our ever increasing debt is immoral? Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky are two such Leftists. One of their solutions to the debt is to have our nation switch from privatized medicine to a single-payer, universal healthcare. One of the savings from such a system is a reduction in the administrative costs of providing and paying for healthcare because there would be more uniformity. Also, Leftists have, for a long time, complained about corporate welfare and how that acts as a cause for our ever increasing debt. This is especially true when it comes to our military spending. Leftists have other suggestions for cutting the debt but the point here is that many conservatives are not aware that there are Leftists who feel that our ever increasing and enormous debt is immoral and that future generations will bear the brunt of this debt.

But Carter's first point regarding structural injustice is where Leftists will disagree with him. It isn't that Carter doesn't identify some of causes of this injustice. Carter does acknowledge racism as being an injustice that has been addressed but still lingers. And here, Carter and Leftists would agree though they might disagree on the degree of racism that still exists. And adequate schools can also be a problem but Carter's solution does not take the big picture into account.

The problem Carter has here is considering whether our current economic system is structurally unjust. If such a consideration turned into an admission, then Carter would have to acknowledge the need for revising the current economic system or supporting a new system. 

We should consider whether Karl Marx has a valid point regarding Capitalism's use of wage labor (click here). Because wages are paid for units of work, the labor power of the worker becomes a commodity. And just like any other commodity, the businessman will often opt to pay the lowest he/she can for any given commodity. This relegates the worker into becoming a disposable object of profit. And if the worker is disposable, so is his or her community that relies on them to financially support it. Capital's treatment of the worker objectifies him/her so that they no longer have intrinsic value. 

When we consider what Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, that constant revolution is what the owner of Capital relies on to survive and that, because of globalization, the law of supply and demand has driven the cost of labor down, we see that the worker can very easily and often encounter a perfect storm that costs him/her their job. Because of all this, many workers are always at risk for losing their jobs to lower paid workers from other countries. And this occurs not just with the lowest skilled workers, it occurs with technical people as well. Computer programmers and Information Technology people have lost their jobs to the outsourcing of jobs overseas. BTW, outsourcing jobs to other countries does not pose the only risk to workers and their jobs, job automation leading to technological unemployment does too.

All of this makes the worker very vulnerable because he/she is placed in a highly volatile job market. When we add to that the fact that many lower skilled jobs are now receiving poverty wages, the worker's plight becomes more dire. All of this volatility is due to the business owners preferred ethic of maximizing profits. This ethic causes other problems such as environment destruction as business owners try to cut more costs to increase profit.

Furthermore, we can add how some who own businesses have accumulated enough wealth to gain a measure of control over lawmakers.

One doesn't have to be a Marxist, that is one who follows Marx's solutions to the problems inherent in Capitalism, to recognize and try to solve the above problems. But it is that Marx's criticisms of Capitalism point out some of the structural injustices that come with our capitalist system. These are injustices which Conservatives are unable to see.

Finally, Carter complains that some liberal evangelists have interpreted the Conservative position as having blamed the person in poverty for their plight. His complaints seem to overlook the faultfinding Conservatives exercise especially concerning the personal values of those who are poor in conjunction with the lack of criticism of the current system.