There will always be those who wish to have a society that is perfectly equal in every measure on every front, enamored by their utopian vision. In the modern utopian conception, there is usually the picturesque image of a society, where no one is poor and no one is rich; where people aren’t fighting over resources but, all people having access to equal amounts of wealth and opportunity, are living in perfect harmony with one another. Typically, the utopians envision a society of equitable outcomes for all individuals and groups, where class struggles no longer exist; where there’s no upper class dominating the lower class; where there’s no bourgeoisie or proletariat; where there’s no oppressor or oppressed; where, in fact, there’s no hierarchy at all. For the utopians of today, everything is simply equal.
As you imagine it yourself, you can almost hear the faint whispers of John Lennon in your ears:
Imagine no possessions /I wonder if you can /No need for greed or hunger /A brotherhood of man /Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world
I admit, I’ve thought this before. It feels becoming to a modern person to think this way. Everything about this vision arouses our modern imagination and sensibilities, especially as people living in a broken world. A world without poverty or greed is truly a glimpse of heaven. There’s just this one problem: it tends to leave out this thing we call reality.
Lennon sure made a catchy tune, but he wasn’t much of a thinker. This is evidenced by his earlier lyrics that often go unnoticed by some:
Imagine there’s no countries / It isn’t hard to do / Nothing to kill or die for / And no religion too / Imagine all the people / Living life in peace, / You may say I’m a dreamer / But I’m not the only one
Imagine there’s no countries or Christianity and living life in peace? Ah, sweet utopia! What could go wrong?
Unfortunately, Lennon was right when he said he wasn’t the only dreamer. In other words, he wasn’t the only person deluded by the fantasy that we can have a possession-less world, devoid of religion, where everyone lives in perfect harmony. Before Lennon, we had Karl Marx. Marx, in somewhat similar fashion, was convinced that if we could overthrow the greedy, bourgeoisie capitalists, do away with private property, and break free from what he called “the opium of the people” (a.k.a. religion), then we could finally live as a collective; as a community. But reality had a different idea. Things didn’t unfold so well for Marx’s vision. You can read that on your own time.
Historically, the reality has been that virtually every time people have tried to revolutionize society in order to bring about this sort of utopian vision, they end up doing some pretty nasty stuff to make it happen, and as a result, societies tend to descend into disorder and become even worse off than before. That’s not conjecture. It’s a historical pattern. The 20th century was chalk-full of bloody examples.
Now, we may give the devil his due: Marx was right about many of the problems people faced in the 20th century. There was certainly economic inequality. The only issue was that his revolutionary “solution” required him and his ideological allies to become even worse tyrants than the supposed tyrants they were blaming their problems on. In his eyes and so many others, the ends justified the means. However, the issue is that some ends can only be brought about by certain means.
One of the issues with utopians like Karl Marx and those who are ideologically warm to him is that they act as if they’re starting from the ground up; as if societies are blank slates. If the system is bad, they reason, then we can just throw away the system and then replace it with a better one, if we get enough people and energy behind the movement. This is what many revolutions have in common. But the reason that so many revolutions have terrible–sometimes bloody–outcomes is because societies do not, in fact, start as blank slates. We inherit imperfect systems from previous generations. Not all systems are relative, of course. Some are so bad that they may demand revolution. Others, however, do not demand this, and if you try to stage a revolutionary overthrow, you may create a Frankensteinian society in its place.
Despite our best wishes and what the utopians think possible, we do not get the privilege of having perfect societies on this side of heaven. We are forced to settle for societies that range from imperfect, yet good and decent, to imperfect and tyrannical. The former is far more optimal, and we have to fight to preserve the good and decent against the tyrants who would raze the world to the ground just to raise up something even worse, all in the name of “equality”.
That being said, there are many in our present moment who are warming up again to Marxist sentiments, whether they realize it or not. They fancy the idea of revolutionizing the system and redistributing wealth to the lower classes in service of their utopian vision, convinced that it will make things more “equal”. But, given that the label of ‘Marxist’ often has a pejorative association, the new versions of Marxists are reluctant to admit any resemblance. I don’t blame them. But when examined closely, much of the sentiments today of these otherwise semi or full-blown anti-capitalists are not much more than Marx repackaged in ways that are easily digestible to the masses.
Nonetheless, the underlying worldview that guides these anti-capitalist, whether a close cousin or direct descendent, still bears the influential mark of Marx. They’re still dividing up the world into hierarchies composed of an oppressor class and oppressive class. It’s just that these newer, hybrid versions don’t divide up the classes solely on economic status, but also on race and gender as well (a topic for a different time). That being said, for those who wish to bring their neo-Marxist, utopian vision to bear on our current economic systems, a few observations are in order.
For starters, considering that our society is not a blank slate, who are we going to have to take from in order to see this utopian vision through? It’s one thing if the upper-class elites give up their wealth voluntarily. But what if they don’t want to voluntarily redistribute large portions of their property to certain groups of people that have been deemed necessary by the masses to give to? In that case, the only option is to force them to give it up involuntarily. Now, I don’t know what you’ve heard, but there’s a word for this: it’s called theft.
This naturally raises a question: If wealth is more concentrated in the hands of a small group of men, and the mobocracy deems such a thing as too greedy—considering that there are people out there with so very little to their name—is it okay to take their property away from them and redistribute it to the poorer, lower classes? One might say that these men have no right to hoard that much money when so many people are struggling just to afford things like gas and groceries.
But this is where a dilemma for the utopian emerges. Does each person have an equal right to private property? If one dismisses that right for wealthy men, then ironically, one has undercut the notion of equality and of equal rights. Therefore, the irony of these sort of utopians advocating for “equality” is that, for many of them, they are willing to dispense with the notion of equality in order to obtain “equality.” As an observation, it’s not coherent according to the standards of their own worldview.
Moreover, let’s consider: what if someone in the impoverished lower class is there because of their own bad decisions? I know that’s a controversial thing to suggest these days. It may sound insensitive but only if you’re ignoring reality. We’re not being compassionate and doing anyone a service by pretending laziness and bad decisions aren’t a reality for large groups of people. We’re all sinners, rich or poor. While the rich may tend towards greed, the poor may tend towards laziness. I get this may make me sound like a run-of-the-mill conservative, but there was a time when progressives accepted this fact also. Regardless of the way it sounds, it remains a truism.
It’s undeniable that poverty, for many people, is a predicament they’ve both created for themselves through foolish choices and then perpetuated through poor habits. If you’re in your twenties and thirties, you know perfectly well the scores of young people going $60-100k into student debt, while not learning a thing in college, and then having trouble paying it off because they’d rather spend money on new clothes, endless subscriptions, and $10 lattes (personally, I don’t think coffee should be that expensive either, but then again, I don’t have to buy them).
That poverty often comes as a result of personal choices is indisputable. We intuitively know that on a personal level, if we’re being honest with ourselves. Don’t take my word for it. The Bible attests to this fact. It makes it quite clear that poverty often comes as a result of a lack of hard work, wisdom, and personal responsibility.
Here are just a few examples:
“A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.” (Proverbs 10:4)
“The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labor.” (Proverbs 12:24)
“Poverty and disgrace come to him who ignores instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is honored.” (Proverbs 13:18)
“The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied.” (Proverbs 13:4)
“For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
The more radical, anti-capitalist progressives have a hard time with this. This is why many of them don’t believe the Bible is inspired by God and full of evil contradictions & errors.
Now, of course, there are economic crises and special circumstances, which may allow for occasional, limited state intervention (e.g. stimulus checks). And even more so, it’s an opportunity for Christians to truly shine and care for their poor neighbors; perhaps pool their resources together to help a struggling member in their community hit hard by an economic crisis. And, yes, we should not be too quick to write off people subjected to these special circumstances, though they be rare, as lazy and irresponsible.
Nonetheless, notice that this type of charity doesn’t require stealing from the rich. Nor does it allow for resentment towards the wealthy and the tax collectors of our day. It doesn’t require for the state or the collective mob to seize the means of production and then redistribute the wealth. It doesn’t require more dependence on the state. Rather, it requires more dependence on one another. It requires Christian individuals to step up, band together, and rise to the occasion of loving our neighbors. It requires local churches and parishes to live out biblical mandates. Self-reliance isn’t always the answer, but neither is state-reliance. What if we relied on our families and local communities more than the government?
Furthermore, personal responsibility can’t be excused across the board, especially in a free marketplace. In a free market economy, where there’s an abundance of opportunity, and there aren’t laws prohibiting people from starting their own businesses, making products to sell, and offering their skills up as services, there are little excuses left. The opportunity is there to build wealth through wise choices, hard work, and diligence. No one is stopping us from this, especially when the laws don’t inhibit or prohibit us.
This has always been part of the “American dream.” It’s the idea that, if you work hard enough, develop some skills, and apply yourself, you can build wealth and cultivate a decent life for you and your family. This idea shouldn’t be disparaged as some covert ideology promulgated by the wealthy upper class elites to keep the lower classes in subordination, as if it were some sort of economic Stockholm Syndrome. It should be heralded as a message of empowerment and meaningful responsibility. Now, I do think that the American dream is getting harder for young people, but you can’t solve that dilemma with Marxist ideals (or democratic socialism, for that matter. Sorry, Bernie.).
Regardless, this is still a message that people need, especially young men. It’s a message of personal responsibility, opposed to one of victimhood. It’s not a message about blaming the system for all your problems. It’s not about overthrowing the system. It’s not about revolution. It’s about taking what opportunities the system affords you and seizing those opportunities to make a better life for yourself and for your family. Because that’s actually possible. You have potential, and if you apply yourself and work hard enough, you can actualize that potential. This is a far cry from what the neo-Marxist utopians tell us, but it’s exactly what young people need to hear.
But the utopians don’t like this message. It’s almost unacceptable to them. Why? For one, it would mean that they would have to take responsibility for their choices, or lack thereof. Simply put, it’s easier to rationalize our laziness and lack of ambition by placing the blame on the system, or “the man” at the top trying to keep us down.
But, above all, perhaps we can conclude that, on a deeper and more subterranean level, it’s hard for them to accept because it would mean conceding the fact that inequality is an inevitable outcome of a system that affords us equal opportunity. The reality of this imperfect world is that when human beings are left to their own choices, some will rise to the top and some will fall to the bottom. Some will choose wisdom and some will choose folly. Some will work harder than the others, and some will settle for the easier route. And some won’t work at all, and instead opt to steal from those that do.
The reality of life is that when men are left to themselves in a free market with equal access to abundant opportunities, ecoonomic inequality becomes an inevitable outcome.
Sure, it would be nice to have a harmonious society where there’s no poor people and everyone enjoys the same measure of equal outcomes, but the reality of life is that when men are left to themselves in a free market with equal access to abundant opportunities, economic inequality becomes an inevitable outcome. Of course, systems like free-market capitalism aren’t perfect, but if you think you can revolutionize the system to get more equality, you’re going to find out that not only are the alternatives worse, but that the means don’t justify the ends; that achieving equality isn’t so easy if it means treating men unequally.
But, after all, maybe it was never about equality. Maybe, for the neo-Marxists, it was always about what they say everything is always about: power. And maybe redistribution of wealth was never about caring for the poor. Maybe it was just about hating the rich. Regardless of what the motivations actually are, we can rest assured that it was never about one thing in particular:
Reality.
“Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Without having any chief, officer, or ruler, she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest. How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.” (Proverbs 6:6-11)
Colton Banks 