We got into a
little argument a short time ago about socialism, capitalism, and Christianity. Coming across a FaceBook placard or whatever
you call ’em that proclaimed, “Capitalism causes socialism”, we made the
mistake of putting our two-and-a-half cents in, although you would have thought
that by now we would have learned our lesson about trying to argue with people
who think assertion is argument and personal insults are proof.
 |
| GKC: Warned of a new religion using the Christian label. |
Anyway, knowing
full well that socialism did not evolve as a direct (or even closely indirect)
response to capitalism, we made so bold as to say so:
Actually,
socialism was first touted not as a replacement for capitalism, but for
Christianity. It was sold as “the Democratic Religion” and labeled “the New
Christianity” and “Neo-Catholicism” before the term socialism came into use
around 1832 or so. “Capitalism” as a term appears to have been first used by
the socialist Louis Blanc in 1850. The invention of a new religion under the
name of Christianity was what Chesterton warned against in his book on Saint
Francis of Assisi.
We figured —
wrongly — that no one could object to what is a series of factual statements
that can be verified very easily by going to original sources as well as some
rather in-depth recent research and analysis.
Still, we should have known that someone wasn’t going to like it.
Sure enough,
somebody piped aboard with the statement, “CS [sic] Lewis spoke approving [sic] of
Christian Socialism.” To this, we
responded: “Doesn’t change the facts, even if he did.” To this witty repartee, we got the somewhat
limited yet assertive response, “1. He did. 2. Christian Socialism is simply an
extension of the Gospel to the realm of economics.”
 |
| "I approved of socialism? First I've heard about it." |
We forbore to point out that
hauling in C.S. Lewis had nothing to do with anything we had said. It was a non sequitur — “It does not
follow.” We contented ourselves by
restating our previous statement in more stately terms:
On
the contrary: socialism of all kinds was intended from the beginning to replace
Christianity. Before the term socialism was coined in 1832 by the
Saint-Simonian Pierre Leroux, socialism was known as “the Democratic Religion.”
Various forms went by different names, such as “the New Christianity” (Henri de
Saint-Simon) and Neo-Catholicism” (Felicite de Lamennais), but all (as de
Tocqueville observed) shared a common principle: the shift of sovereignty from
the human person created by God, to some form of the collective created by man.
As Fulton Sheen observed in his doctoral thesis in 1925, God and
Intelligence in Modern Philosophy (1925), this demotes God to being the
servant of man, and elevates collective man to the status of God. All of the “new
things” (socialism, modernism, and the New Age) were condemned by Pope Gregory
XVI in 1832 and 1834, and reiterated by almost every subsequent pontiff (John
Paul I didn’t get a chance — as pope, although he did issue condemnations as
Archbishop of Milan). It is irrelevant that C.S. Lewis “spoke approvingly of
Christian socialism.” It does not change truth.
 |
| "It may be elementary, my dear Watson, but I still don't see it." |
This did not satisfy
the interlocutor (although we hoped he might give it up as a lost cause), but
we did start wondering where C.S. Lewis ever said anything “approving” of socialism. We have read many of Lewis’s books, but don’t
remember anything of the sort.
We decided to do
a little googling with our goo-goo-googly eyes, and came up with a short
passage from Mere Christianity (1952) that some people with a low level
of reading comprehension or an ax to grind might be tempted to interpret as
approval of socialism. As Lewis stated,
The New Testament, without going
into details, gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society
would be like . . . a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist . . .
If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we
should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its
economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, “advanced,” but that its
family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned . . . That is
just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human
machine. We have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and
each of us wants to make out those bits and pieces and leave the rest.
That is why we do not get much further; and that is why people who are fighting
for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for Christianity.
Now another point. There is
one bit of advice given to us by the ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in
the Old Testament, and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages,
which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these
people told us not to lend money at interest: and lending money at interest — what
we call investment — is the basis of our whole system.
 |
| "Socialism is safe. I am not." |
There is at least
one glaringly obvious error that Lewis made here, but it doesn’t change
anything. It just indicates a distaste
for capitalism. “Usury” is not all
interest, but interest on a loan of money not used for a productive purpose, i.e.,
taking a share of profits when no profit is due. Investment is the last thing that involves
usury . . . unless the lender doesn’t assume part of the risk, in which case,
yes, it’s usury. Otherwise, it’s a
rightful share of the profits.
But we’re
interested in Lewis’s thoughts about socialism, not capitalism. If this is the passage to which our critics
referred, it’s a rather weak “approval” of socialism, all things considered. It is confined to a single phrase, unless you
interpret “leftist” as necessarily meaning socialist . . . and even that is a
pretty weak “approval.” To say that
something “would be what we now call Leftist” is “approval” is stretching
things a rather large mite.
 |
| It may look like socialism to the modern pagan, but it isn't. |
Stretching things
past the breaking point is the only mention of socialism in the passage: “We
should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, ‘advanced.’”
In other words,
from the perspective of a society that Lewis believed to be largely
non-Christian and socialist, people would think that a society modeled on
Christian values was acceptable in certain “advanced” respects, but
unacceptable in others. They would
approve what they believed to be its socialist aspects, but not its family life
and code of manners.
Taken as it
stands, this actually says nothing about socialism except that “we should feel”
that a “Christian society” would appear to be socialist in some respects
to non-Christians and yet the opposite of socialism in others. Even kicking out the qualifier “we should
feel” doesn’t actually turn this statement into “approval” of socialism. Lewis clearly implied that appearances are
deceiving and we should not assume that what appears to be socialism is
actually socialism. Why? Because —
That is just what one would
expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have
all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to
make out those bits and pieces and leave the rest. That is why we do not
get much further; and that is why people who are fighting for quite opposite
things can both say they are fighting for Christianity.
 |
| Evelyn Waugh's vision of socialism. |
In other words, a
“Christian society” would be neither socialist nor capitalist, despite appearances,
and that is why things have ground to a halt (in Lewis’s opinion). As he clearly stated, “people who are fighting
for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for Christianity” — obviously
implying both the capitalists and the socialists are wrong!
The only other
mention of socialism by Lewis we found that could be twisted into some sort of
approval of socialism is in a letter he wrote in 1954 to a friend who had been
sending him “little luxuries” for which he had no ration coupons and wanted to
know if he still wanted them. As he
said,
I’m afraid it would be sheer
dishonesty to pretend that we now have any kitchen needs; this government has
done a magnificent job in getting us on our feet again, and a few weeks back,
we solemnly burnt our Ration Books. Everything is now “off ration,” and though
at first of course, prices went up with a rush, they are now dropping.
But cheer up, if our friends the
Socialists get back into power, you will be able to exercise your unfailing
kindness once more by supplying us, not with little luxuries, but with the
necessities of life!
Translation: if
the socialists get into power, things would — in Lewis’s opinion — immediately
go from “magnificent” to bad in short order, and he would require that his
friend send him not merely a few “little luxuries,” but “the necessities of
life.”
This is hardly “approval”
of socialism in any form . . . at least, in our opinion. . . .
#30#
