Clarifying Communism

Communism, in and of itself, does not have anything to do with what many believe it does.  Recent exposure to straw men of communism intrigued me enough to bring about in me a desire to correct these straw men fallacies.  No philosophy--whether Christianity, communism, atheism, Islam, and so on--is false simply because its adherents act in a certain way.  Make no mistake: I am not a communist.  As I will explain, that merely means I do not want to practice communism, which is itself simply a system of living that forgoes private property ownership in favor of communal sharing.  It does not mean that I oppose all manifestations of communism.  Read on to see what I mean and do not mean.

Politically conservative Christians sometimes drastically oversimplify the nature of communism and represent it in such a way that, according to the Christian worldview, communism cannot ever be legitimate.  One famous and dedicated Christian from the 1900s, Martin Luther King, Jr., devoted a whole chapter of his book Strength to Love setting up a straw man of communism as a concept and condemning the caricature he created.  It is certainly true that his criticisms applied to the Russian communism of that era, but he never clarifies that statism, among other things, has no inherent connection with simple communism as a basic concept.  I must correct this misrepresentation.  To do so, I will first show what he actually said about communism by quoting his book:


"First, Communism is based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life and history.  According to Communist theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe.  Such a philosophy is avowedly secularistic and atheistic.  Under it, God is merely a figment of the imagination, religion is a product of fear and ignorance, and the church is an invention of the rulers to control the masses." (98)

"In contrast to the ethical relativism of Communism, Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values . . . Communism attributes ultimate value to the state." (99)


First, some words of clarification about definitions.  Materialism is the belief that nothing but matter exists.  Humanism is a position on ethics (among other things) that often appears alongside atheism, which is itself, of course, the belief that no deities of any kind exist.  Relativism is the self-refuting notion that there are no absolutes (with regards to morality, aesthetics, or all human knowledge, depending on the type), with King charging communism of some innate connection with moral relativism.  Now . . . does the idea of communal sharing of property (not in a coerced or tyrannical way) necessarily involve, suggest, or logically demand any of these things?

Relativism of any sort is impossible (conflicting claims can't be simultaneously true, but they can sometimes all be false), atheism is false (there is at least an uncaused cause), and there are nonmaterial things (the mind and its consciousness, logic, the uncaused cause).  Yet since the legitimacy of communism does not actually hinge on any of these unrelated belief systems, even though communism has certainly been historically applied by statist, atheistic tyrants like Stalin and though it has at times been championed by naturalists, communism itself is not refuted simply by refuting relativism, atheism, or naturalism (also called physicalism and materialism).  Communism as a simple conceptual system has nothing to do with nihilism, atheism, relativism, naturalism, or any such ideologies.  The historical affiliation of communism with leaders who embraced some of these philosophies does not reflect on communism itself, which is merely the idea of communal sharing of goods.  The beliefs of historical communists do not falsify communism any more than the sinful actions of Christians during history mean that Christianity is false--because an idea is true if it conforms to the way reality is, not if its followers act a certain way!

What about the fact that the Bible clearly protects property rights?  Yes, as a Christian theonomist I must draw attention to Exodus 22, the first 15 verses of which detail various acts of theft and their respective punishments, including larceny, arson, and burglary.  The Bible certainly condemns all theft and robbery in no ambiguous terms (Exodus 20:15, Isaiah 61:8, etc).  Individuals have a moral right to possess and protect their personal property (protect within certain moral boundaries--for instance, see Exodus 22:2-3).  But Exodus 22 only safeguards the private property of men and women who want to keep private property.  What if they want to live in a communistic setting?

Does the Bible condemn people if they wish to form a group, voluntarily surrender private ownership of most or all items, and consensually share their belongings as a community, doing their best to redistribute items from those who have a surplus to those who need them the most?  Not at all!  There is no sin in such a system.  After all, the early church in Acts 2 displays some communistic characteristics!  Acts 2:44-45 says that the early church "had everything in common.  Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need".  This is indeed a form of communism described here!  But their communal sharing of resources was not coerced by a tyrannical government, it was freely engaged in by the group out of generosity and love.  This group did not resemble Stalin's Russia or Mao's China at all.

I did not write this because I am a communist or want to live even in a morally legitimate communist society or group.  I wrote this merely to distinguish an idea from its common explanations and its semi-recent historical manifestations.  It is much easier, after all, to push down a figure made of straw than it is to push down an actual person.  Nevertheless, I do not think that many conservatives who condemn communism as some inherent evil really try to define communism properly and condemn only the untrue or immoral add-ons.  It is time for this to end.


Strength to Love.  King, Jr., Martin Luther.  Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963.  Print.