I like to read. As well, I think it is my duty as a pastor to read. Further, if Spurgeon’s example is any indication, being widely read is of benefit to the spiritual leader as a means of searching out fields of study and thought to which Bible truth and principles can be applied.
It is in that vein that I began reading “Socialism,” written by Ludwig von Mises in 1922. Needless to say, if you recognize his name at all, “Socialism” made a tremendous impact in Europe when it was published and Great Britain and the United States when it was translated into English. Having that in mind as I began to read the book, I was astonished to learn something while reading the preface to the second English edition that explains so many things that had previously puzzled me. Following are a portion of his remarks:
It was at this moment that Marx appeared. Adept as he was in Hegelian dialectic-a system easy of abuse by those who seek to dominate thought by arbitrary flights of fancy and metaphysical verbosity-he was not slow in finding a way out of the dilemma in which socialists found themselves. Since Science and Logic had argued against Socialism, it was imperative to devise a system which could be relied on to defend it against such unpalatable criticism. This was the task which Marxism undertook to perform. It had three lines of procedure. First, it denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an "ideological superstructure" of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was "revealed" as "bourgeois" reasoning, an apology for Capitalism. Secondly, it laid it down that the dialectical development led of necessity to Socialism; that the aim and end of all history was the socialization of the means of production by the expropriation of the expropriators-the negation of negation. Finally, it was ruled that no one should be allowed to put forward, as the Utopians had done, any definite proposals for the construction of the Socialist Promised Land. Since the coming of Socialism was inevitable, Science would best renounce all attempt to determine its nature.
At no point in history has a doctrine found such immediate and complete acceptance as that contained in these three principles of Marxism. The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels as interpreted by their respective sects and to regard such doctrines as the unshakable foundation and ultimate source of all that is known about Society and as constituting the highest standard in political dealings. But if we include under the term "Marxist" all who have accepted the basic Marxian principles-that class conditions thought, that Socialism is inevitable, and that research into the being and working of the socialist community is unscientific-we shall find very few non-Marxists in Europe east of the Rhine, and even in Western Europe and the United States many more supporters than opponents of Marxism. Professed Christians attack the materialism of Marxists, monarchists their republicanism, nationalists their internationalism; yet they them selves, each in turn, wish to be known as Christian Socialists, State Socialists, National Socialists. They assert that their particular brand of Socialism is the only true one-that which "shall" come, bringing with it happiness and contentment. The Socialism of others, they say, has not the genuine class origin of their own. At the same time they scrupulously respect Marx’s prohibition of any inquiry into the institutions of the socialist economy of the future, and try to interpret the working of the present economic system as a development leading to Socialism in accordance with the inexorable demand of the historical process. Of course, not Marxists alone, but most of those who emphatically declare themselves anti-Marxists, think entirely on Marxist lines and have adopted Marx's arbitrary, unconfirmed and easily refutable dogmas. If and when they come into power, they govern and work entirely in the socialist spirit.[1]
What does this passage teach me? First, I had not known that socialism was a thoroughly refuted economic and philosophical system, that it had been shown to be scientifically and logically unworkable. Second, I had not known that Karl Marx’s sleight of hand to justify socialism and advance his ideas of communism was to merely deny that logic was universally valid for all mankind and all ages. Brilliant. Diabolical. Secondly, it was ruled (by what authority I do not know) that no one should be allowed to put forward any definite proposals for what socialism would inevitably lead to. Of course, this disconnects activity from future consequences and even the consideration of future consequences.
I have long been of the persuasion that socialism and communism are attempts to create heaven on earth, but I had never before been made aware of the complete disconnect from rational thought that is fundamentally required to be a socialist. I now understand Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and others so much better than I did a few hours ago.
[1] Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Second English Edition), pages 6-7.
