We published responses to ‘The Rise of American Socialism’ last week. Not all readers were supportive of Gazelle viewpoints, however. Blogger ‘Lovely Cup of Tea’ was unable to post to the Gazelle for technical reasons. Here is what he had to say:

I'm not very left-leaning in my politics (or economics) so whilst I admit I feel a slight sense of schadenfreude over the fate of some of the banks this week, I quite strongly disagree with those in the media making the assertion that socialism and nationalisation are the new way forward for the world. There's nothing new under the sun of course, but I also find myself out of step with a lot of fellow Christians who lean to the left as a result of their theological commitments.

Christianity shares a lot of common language with socialism (think: justice, equality, redistribution, no more exploitation etc) but even despite my misgivings over what it is exactly that these terms mean, I think it is accurate to say that socialist societies have an exceedingly poor track record in providing for their people for a great many number of reasons. I also think it is truthful and accurate to say that capitalism has far outstripped any other economic system in terms of its ability to improve the living standards of large numbers of people, both in terms of actual wealth and high-technology, and this is why I favour it even as the least worst of all economic systems.

Anyhow that's for another day. Here's my comment from The Gazelle:

I think that while some of the more foolish elements of the free-marketeering crowd got their comeuppance this week, I'm not so sure that socialism has any real answers to the problems caused by more rampant forms capitalism. In the short-term, state intervention and bail-out of financial institutions helps, but in the longer term the restrictions that socialism places on the creation of wealth with the intention of reducing inequality and making society fairer means that far less wealth is created in socialist economies but conversely the state needs to spend far more money. The end result is that socialist societies are invariably far less developed and more backward than capitalist ones, as was clear from the economic course of the twentieth century. Liberal democracies and markets trumped socialism and planned economies in every possible sense. It's terribly un-PC to admit it, but there is a plausible argument to suggest that capitalism has brought higher living standards to a higher number of people than any other economic system has even come close to.

I find difficult as a Christian who has less sympathy for socialism than most because the biblical imperatives to help the poor are far harder to implement in the real economic world than working on the assumption that capitalism is the bad guy and that socialism (in some form or another) is the answer. There is a real danger whereby in protesting against the principalities and powers of the market we find ourselves crying out to Caesar to end our woes.

The answer to Naomi Klein's question is also not so cut-and-dried. Morally it would be an amazing gesture to bail out consumer debts and to wipe out people's mortgages, but it would be economically suicidal. The US govt has bailed out banks with tax money on the assumption that these banks will once again be able to lend money to create wealth so that tax revenues will continue to be generated and the state will continue to be funded, but if instead the US govt decided to give the money to those in debt so they could pay off their homes, not only would the money immediately all go back to the banks anyway (since these are the ones to whom the mortgage is owed), but if the banks had not been bailed out and had collapsed, any individual or employer who had borrowed money from a bank to fund their business would immediately find themselves bankrupted and out of a job. Not only that, but if the banks collapsed and could no longer lend money to sustain the economy and create new wealth, tax revenues would also collapse and decimate the social services that the poorest rely on. Starkly speaking, it makes more economic sense to bail out banks (who make it possible to create further wealth) than to bail out those who owe money to the banks.

It's a very difficult issue theologically since we know what we ought to do in some general sense (e.g. help the poor and establish justice) but beyond practicing church-based altruism there are very few plausible economic ideas in the theological academy and difficult questions need to be asked although I'm certain that socialism is not going to be the answer.

It is easy to understand that my commentary might be read as an apologia for socialism. Read carefully, however, and you will notice that I do not propose socialism as the answer, nor suggest that I am a socialist. But, neither am I willing to brush off ‘biblical imperatives’ because they are difficult to implement. If they are imperatives, they cannot be ignored by a conscientious believer. (Of course, it would be necessary to discuss what a ‘biblical’ imperative is.)

I noticed in reporting on the US Senate questioning of the Dept of Treasury’s plan to nationalise the mortgage debt that at least one senator has similar concerns to Norma Klein’s. And, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York made comments last week that were not far from the Gazelle’s. We don’t mind being ‘altruistic Christians’ alongside these heavy-weights.

Knee-jerk reactions against the idea of socialism, however, do not go far towards asking hard questions. It is easy to understand that my commentary might be read as an apologia for socialism. Read carefully, however, and you will notice that I do not propose socialism as the answer, nor suggest that I am a socialist. But, neither am I willing to brush off ‘biblical imperatives’ because they are difficult to implement. If they are imperatives, they cannot be ignored by a conscientious believer. (Of course, it would be necessary to discuss what a ‘biblical’ imperative is.) I noticed in reporting on the US Senate questioning of the Dept of Treasury’s plan to nationalise the mortgage debt that at least one senator has similar concerns to Norma Klein’s. And, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York made comments last week that were not far from the Gazelle’s. We don’t mind being ‘altruistic Christians’ alongside these heavy-weights. Knee-jerk reactions against the idea of socialism, however, do not go far towards asking hard questions. (The Archbishop of Canterbury: ‘To grant that without a basis of some common prosperity and stability, no speculative market can long survive is not to argue for rigid Soviet-style centralised direction’). Just today I heard a US Congressman state that accepting the bailout plan now submitted to them is ‘the first step down the slippery slope of socialism’ (most slopes tend to be rather slippery in foul weather). The point of the previous article was to question this sort of ‘all or nothing’ condemnation of socialist concerns, as though to pass one bill of a socialist sort (and this really is not socialism—or the money would be going to the citizens rather than the banks) will inevitably result in full-blown communism.

Another reader who finds capitalism fine, thank you very much, sent this in by email:

I disagree with the doomsday outlook. The American system is capable of reform and does not necessarily need to choose between a European style socialism or imminent ruin. The government is terribly ineffective at administering most anything and should leave industry to the market and the people. The government is to provide the things which cannot be provided by the people (e.g., national security) and to provide oversight but not control of select other industries such as banking, education, healthcare. As a social service guy I can tell you that dependence on the state for caring for the poor is the least effective answer to the problems in our communities. That said, I appreciate that living with Europe's socialized medicine, etc. may not be the horrific experience attributed to it by some.

Also, the article suggests that socialism is moral/godly while the American system runs counter to biblical principles. I would suggest that the judeo-christian cultural foundation of America is still unique and significant (though that is a battle in full wage) while Europe has become overtly secular. One of my contentions with the liberal movement in the US is that it includes a radical anti-christian element. Governor Palin was chastised recently in the media for being a conservative Christian and the commentator denounced the idea that any conservative Christian could possibly adhere to the separation of church and state and should not be allowed to run for office. As if a secularist could balance their values and their commission but the Christian could not. Patently offensive.

You suggest that the terms socialism/communism are nasty in America but I can tell you that amongst the liberal left there is vehement hatred for the conservative Christian. Your conception of the American media as cronies for the right could not be further from the truth. I understand your disdain for Murdock and Fox News but c'mon! They are but one outlet to counter the preponderence of thinly veiled liberal honks on the network channels, at CNN, and don't get me started on MSNBC. You can not honestly think that Democrats do not receive an unmitigated pass on issues and practical advocacy from the American mainstream media.

It appears the Gazelle article pushed all the right buttons! And, as for doomsday outlooks, the past two weeks put the Gazelle in company with a fair number of others. For now, beyond noting the impression shared by the previous commenter that the article was a call to socialism, comment here will be limited to two notes.

First is the shift to moral categories, interpreting the Gazelle article in terms of a godly/ungodly bipolarity. The article was an attempt to get beyond the ideologies of capitalism and socialism, and to move to a biblical perspective. If capitalism compared unfavourably to readers…

But it is a great leap in reasoning to link European social democracy causally with secularism (meaning the decline of Christian influence). American dualist categories cannot be translated straight across to Europe; America does not have the memory of the devastation of war and occupation that Europe has.

Secondly, the story of a ‘radical anti-christian element’ of liberal America seems to be well-balanced by a rather strong anti-liberal element among conservative Americans. The polarisation of American society, with a nearly precise 50/50 split between liberal and conservative, has become deeply entrenched, and is becoming self-destructive (consider the shouts of ‘Terrorist!’ and ‘Kill him!’ against Obama in recent Republican rallies!).

This is only emphasised by the discussion of the role of the media. If I did not preface my reference to the media who inflate the weaknesses of the National Health Service with the qualifier ‘conservative’, it could surely be understood. Conservatives listen only to conservative media; liberals only to liberal media. So, there are two nations that do not meet without hatred. Is it any wonder the Gazelle looks across the Atlantic with some gloom?

Since these responses came to the Gazelle there has been some posted discussion. It is interesting that ‘Scott’ brings up Democrat policies. The Gazelle is not an apologist for the American Democratic party, and invoked no political party or policy. It would seem that American ‘conservatives’ are so finely tuned to perceived ‘liberal’ tendencies that they immediately read their own political concerns into the Gazelle’s discussion. The Gazelle editor is no more Democrat than Republican. He has, however, been strongly influenced by the 8th Century (BC) Hebrew prophets. Try reading Amos with the past few weeks in mind.

American evangelicals might be surprised to learn that, historically, British evangelicals have been on the radical ‘left’ in contrast to conservative landed interests. Indeed, there is a very respectable Christian Socialist Movement. The Gazelle, nevertheless, has not joined this movement, because of its close relation to one political party.

Christ cannot be contained by any political party.