Is Socialism Constitutional?
By Scott Jones
Socialism seems to be popular among young voters today, even among those who call themselves Christian. In the 2016 and 2020 elections avowed Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders came close to capturing the Democrat Party nomination for president. In 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka AOC), who describes herself as a Democratic Socialist won election to the Unites States House of Representatives, loudly proclaiming that she is “The Boss”, whatever that means. Both are empowered by throngs of young people who are attracted to socialism. This trend begs two questions:
Is socialism compatible with a constitutional republic?
Is socialism compatible with a Biblical worldview?
In this post, we examine the first question. We will discuss the second in a separate post.
Socialism and The Constitution of the United States
So, what is socialism? Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises provides a concise description: “It is the aim of Socialism to transfer the means of production from private ownership to ownership of organized society, to the State. The socialistic state owns all material factors of production and thus directs it.”[i] Since under socialism all economic activity is directed by the state, there can be no voluntary free exchange of goods. Given that socialism is state control of the economy, it is logical to conclude that socialism, while proclaiming “freedom”, is actually incompatible with a free market.
Karl Marx said: “The Theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”[ii] Without a right to property, the individual’s life is subject to the whims of the State. Friedrich Hayek reminds the reader that both Alexis de Tocqueville and Lord Acton warned us that “socialism means slavery.”[iii] The Preamble to the United States Constitution states that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to “Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”[iv] So, if socialism means slavery, then it must be incompatible with the objectives of the United States of America. Why is this so? While Liberty allows each individual the maximum freedom of action (within limits prescribed by law), socialism requires everyone to surrender his or her property and labor to the State, so the State may direct its use.
Socialism and Coercion
But what if some individuals choose to not participate? Hayek tells us. Individuals will willingly comply with the State as long as they agree with the ends. But the ends on which all will agree are very few (e.g. defense against a common enemy or the need for police and courts). Therefore, as the State determines more of the ends, it must of necessity resort to coercion to achieve those ends on which the individuals disagree. “… as there is less community of views, the necessity to rely on force and coercion increases.”[v] Hayek goes further, “To undertake the direction of the economic life of people with widely divergent ideals and values is to assume responsibilities which commit one to the use of force; it is to assume a position where the best intentions cannot prevent one from being forced to act in a way which to some of those affected must appear highly immoral.”[vi] Thus, despite the charitable and beneficent intentions of Bernie, AOC and their friends, they will have to resort to force and coercion to impose their socialist Utopia on the citizens of the United States. Recent riots in Portland, Seattle, and other cities demonstrate that the socialists are willing to use force to achieve their ends.
Socialism and Totalitarianism
Hayek groups the various Utopian economic schemes, such as: Fabian Socialism, Welfarism, National Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Democratic Socialism, and so on, under the term “collectivism”. “The various kinds of collectivism, communism, fascism, etc., differ among themselves in the nature of the goal toward which they want to direct the efforts of society. But they all differ from [classical] liberalism and individualism in wanting to organize the whole of society and all its resources for this unitary end and in refusing to recognize autonomous spheres in which the ends of the individuals are supreme. In short, they are totalitarian in the true sense of this new word which we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call collectivism.”[vii]
Thus, while collectivist schemes differ in their ends, and in where they begin on the scale of coercion, they must all inexorably march forward to totalitarianism. Liberty and collectivism, e.g. socialism, cannot coexist. Since one of the key objectives of the Constitution is to “secure the blessings of liberty”, we must also conclude that our constitutional republic cannot coexist with socialism. We must choose one or the other. But you may say that Jesus commands us to care for the poor and socialism is a better way to care for the poor. In the next post we will discuss the question “Is socialism Biblical?”
Works Cited
Congress of the United States. 1789. The Constitution of the United States of America. New York, NY: Congress of the United States.
Hayek, F. A. 2007. The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) . Routledge, London: The University of Chicago Press.
Marx, Karl. 1888. The Communist Manifesto. Kindle Edition.
von Mises, Ludwig. 1981. Socialism, An Ecomonic and Sociological Analysis. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics.
[i] (von Mises 1981)
[ii] (Marx 1888)
[iii] (Hayek 2007)
[iv] (Congress of the United States 1789)
[v] (Hayek 2007)
[vi] (Hayek 2007)
[vii] (Hayek 2007)
Do you want to learn more about how our government functions, and how you, as a Christian can get involved?