Brad Alles

We continue to examine economics, or the making, selling, and buying of goods and services.  Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other system.  But what if we would follow another system of economics?

For instance, if we follow socialism, then we’d better be ready for a lower standard of living. Tom Bethell wrote about “How Private Property Saved the Pilgrims.” Listen to what the Pilgrims originally thought:

When the Pilgrims landed in 1620, they established a system of communal property. Within three years they had scrapped it, instituting private property instead…[Governor] Bradford’s comments make it clear that common ownership demoralized the community far more than the tax. It was not Pilgrims laboring for investors [in Europe] that caused so much distress but Pilgrims laboring for other Pilgrims…The industrious (in Plymouth) were forced to subsidize the slackers (in Plymouth).

Moreover, listen to what non-Christians say about economics. Secular Humanist and philosopher Marvin Zimmerman said, “I contend that the evidence supports the view that democratic capitalism is more productive of human good than democratic socialism.” In a similar way, Secular Humanist and sociologist Robert Shaeffer said, “No intellectually honest person today can deny that the history of socialism is a sorry tale of economic failure and crimes against humanity.”

Why is this so?  Remember that in socialism, the government controls the marketplace.  It isn’t people freely choosing to buy and sell, but the government controlling the exchange of goods and services.

To illustrate the failure of socialist economics, take Cuba. When Jeffrey Goldberg, writer for The Atlantic magazine, asked Fidel Castro, former president of Cuba, if his Communist economic system was still worth exporting, Castro answered frankly, “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us any more.”

The United Kingdom’s The Guardian newspaper wrote, “That the island’s economy is a disaster is hardly news… Agriculture has been a big disappointment…central planning and state-run co-operatives have produced chronic shortages, prompting an old, bitter joke that the revolution’s three biggest failures are breakfast, lunch and dinner.”

Why did Castro bluntly admit his economic model didn’t work? Since it is based on the incorrect assumption that man is good, and that if we have “central planners” control the society, we can produce the perfect world. Believing as the Secular Humanists do in the goodness of man, the authority of experts, and the need for an all-powerful state to coordinate life at every level, Marxists want to address all issues and control them. Whether it is speech, religion, or economics, if the right people are in charge, utopia is not far away.

Take economics: don’t allow innovators to produce things in a free market, with supply and demand dictating success or failure. (An example is the late Steve Jobs and Apple, with all the popular innovations produced by that company: iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc.) Instead, trust the government to know what to produce, how much, and what to charge for it. Reality proves them wrong in numerous Communist nations. Castro admitted it.

When the Pilgrims tried to live communally, some worked and some didn’t, but the rule was that all shared in the food production.  Instead of keeping that system, they stopped that after 3 years, and let everyone fend for themselves.   When you have to work to eat, your motivation goes up as opposed to relying on someone else to feed you.

The track record of socialism is clear.  We will have a better chance at prosperity if we follow capitalistic principles.