Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Why is socialism being promoted by conservative Christian outlets?
Why is socialism being promoted by conservative Christian outlets?
Apr 4, 2025 1:02 PM

“Socialism,” said Richard John Neuhaus, “is the religion people get when they lose their religion.” While that might have been true in Neuhaus’s day, many young Christians are now attempting to have their faith and socialism too.

I never got the opportunity to meet Fr. Neuhaus. He died in January 2009, two months before I started working as the web editor at the magazine he founded, First Things. I suspect, though, that the staunch advocate of democratic capitalism would be surprised and dismayed to find his publication now has editors who identify as socialist and columnists who claim capitalism is inimical to Christianity.

I’d also be curious to hear what he thought of the baffling article published yesterday in his magazine in which Andrew Strain claims a truly free market is as mythical as a unicorn. I loathe to appear to be picking on Mr. Strain, but by analyzing his essay we can see mon pattern that is emerging, even in once conservative publications: writers who don’t know the first thing about free markets explaining why they are inferior to socialist policies.

The theme of Strain’s article is that, “So-called free markets are not actually free. Recognizing this, we are at liberty to evaluate economic life by other, higher criteria than market freedom.” In a sense, this is not a controversial claim. Because of state intervention, many markets are indeed not free.

But this is not what Strain means. He is arguing that because the state intervenes in markets they are not free and thus we need more state intervention. Strain says,

Neoliberals often invoke a dichotomy between public and private: The private (“the market”) operates according petitive self-interest, whereas the public (“the state”) is a coercive expression of politics. But the foundation of markets in western economies is mercial corporation, mercial corporations are not simply private.

While he touches on an important point by highlighting petitive self-interest” and “coercive expression of politics,” Strain’s understanding of the “the market” is plete. It’s also absurd to claim as he does that the foundation of markets is mercial corporation. A better way to think about markets is through what the legendary hedge fund manager Ray Dalio calls a “transactions-based approach”:

An economy is simply the sum of the transactions that make it up. A transaction is a simple thing. Because there are a lot of them, the economy looks plex than it really is. If instead of looking at it from the top down, we look at it from the transaction up, it is much easier to understand.

A transaction consists of the buyer giving money (or credit) to a seller and the seller giving a good, a service or a financial asset to the buyer in exchange. A market consists of all the buyers and sellers making exchanges for the same things – e.g., the wheat market consists of different people making different transactions for different reasons over time. An economy consists of all of the transactions in all of its markets. So, while plex, an economy is really just a zillion simple things working together, which makes it look plex than it really is.

A market consists of all the buyers and sellers making exchanges for the same things. The buyers and sellers can certainly mercial corporations, but they can also be individuals, non-profits, partnerships, or even the government. When es to markets there is absolutely nothing special about corporations.

Having started off with a misunderstanding of markets, Strain then proceeds to highlight his misunderstanding of corporations:

As David Ciepley has pointed out, [corporations] are neither fish nor fowl. They rest on private initiative but depend on the state to co-create and sustain them. The distinctive features mercial corporations are impossible to maintain without the state’s ensuring them. Ciepley explains: “The business corporation depends on government for its contractual individuality, or ‘personhood’—its right to own property, make contracts, and sue and be sued as an individual. . . . The corporation depends on government for its governing rights: its right to establish and enforce rules within its jurisdiction.” The corporation is defined by its government-created and -conserved properties: limited liability, asset shielding, and asset lock-in. The corporation as a market institution is a product of the state, and what it means to be a corporation is inseparable by its very nature from governmental power.

Strain makes an error that is all mon today: assuming that if a government recognizes or regulates an institution then the state must have created the institution. The most obvious example of this thinking is on the institution of marriage. Many intelligent people believe that since the state has the ability to regulate and redefine what it will consider to be “marriage” that it has the power to changes the ontological status of marriage. It does not.

Nor, for that matter, is the ontological status of corporations dependent on the state. A corporation is merely a group of people who choose to act as a single entity. They almost always seek government recognition, of course, because it makes it easier to deal with our ubiquitous legal environment. But the state does not “co-create” a corporation any more than the state “co-creates” a marriage when it issues a marriage license.

Strain is correct, of course, in implying that the corporation depends on government to recognize and enforce its rights. But that is true also for individuals. While government does not establish our natural rights as humans, we rely on the state to recognize, protect, and enforce these rights when necessary. That is one of the primary functions of the state.

Up to this point, Strain appears to be merely confused about markets and corporations. However, he next uses this confusion as the basis for a peculiar argument:

This fact has devastating implications for those who subscribe to the notion of a self-regulating market. A laissez-faire economy that has corporations is a contradiction in terms, since in corporations the private is intertwined with the public. In the age of corporations, a truly free market is as mythical as a unicorn. Once we recognize this, and discard the public/private dichotomy, we can cease to decry state intervention as such, and begin to think about the best way to manage our economy. Intervention should be judged on its merits—how well it serves mon good—rather than condemned on principle. And mon good, contrary to neoliberal tenets, is not a utilitarian aggregate of material goods, but the order of justice and peace participated in by all the members of a society. This order and its demands are the true basis for assessing government intervention.

This paragraph is such as mess that it’s hard to know where to start. But let’s unpack it as best we can.

First, the claim that “a laissez-faire economy that has corporations is a contradiction in terms” is nonsensical. Laissez-faire is merely the idea that “the less the government is involved in the economy, the better off business will be – and by extension, society as a whole.” Even if we concede that corporations are wholly birthed by the government it would not be a contradiction to claim that businesses, once born, should have as minimal interference with their parent as possible.

Second, the claim that “in the age of corporations, a truly free market is as mythical as a unicorn” is easily disproven. The “Market” (i.e., the economy) is merely an aggregate of all markets. Some of these markets are free, others less so. For example, as a seller of his writing, Strain entered the “market” for online articles and engaged the buyer, First Things magazine. That market is relatively free of government interference. No one from the state told Strain or First Things how much had to be paid for the article, what the word count must be, when it could be published, etc. The fact that Strain never recognized that he was engaged in a market activity—much less engaging in a free market—merely reveals how constrained his thinking is on this issue of markets.

Third, he claims that since corporations rely on the government to enforce their rights then we should “cease to decry state intervention as such, and begin to think about the best way to manage our economy.” This is a question-begging conclusion. Those of us who advocate for free markets and “decry state intervention” do so precisely because we think it’s the best way to manage the economy.

Fourth, Strain engages in reification when he says, “Intervention should be judged on its merits—how well it serves mon good—rather than condemned on principle.” Before we can judge the merits we must ask who is doing the intervention? Strain would say “the State.” But who is the State? Is it the consensus of a democratic majority? The Congress? Unelected bureaucrats?

What Strain is saying is that some other people—rather than those directly engaged in the market activity—should decide what is best for those involved. Unfortunately, many people tend to prefer government interventions to market-driven solutions because of this fallacious reified thinking. As Pascal Boyer says:

[H]umans may be motivated to place their trust in processes that are (or at least seem to be) driven by agents rather than impersonal factors. This may be why there is a strong correlation between being scared of markets and being in favour of state interventions in the economy. One of the most widespread political assumptions in modern industrial societies is that “the government should do something about x”, where x can be any social or economic problem. Why do people trust the state? The state (in people’s intuitions, not in actual fact) has all the trappings of an agent. It is supposed to have knowledge, memories, intentions, strategies, etc. Now it may be that people are vastly fortable trusting an agent to provide help or impose sanctions, than they would trust an impersonal, distributed and largely invisible process. That would be mostly a question of intuitive psychology (highly salient in our reasonings about social processes) versus population thinking (highly unintuitive, difficult to acquire and engage in without sustained effort).

Fifth, Strain says we should judge interventions on their merits. But what he fails to note is that once the state has intervened we often have no say in whether the intervention was good or bad. The state has spoken and we are to fall in line. That is another reason free market advocates prefer that before being implemented interventions be as minimal as possible and proven to be for mon good.

Sixth, Strain says “contrary to neoliberal tenets, mon good] is not a utilitarian aggregate of material goods, but the order of justice and peace participated in by all the members of a society.” It’s hard to know what to make of this slander. I’ll be generous and assume ment was made out of simple ignorance and that he isn’t aware of why most free market advocates believe it serves mon good. As Rev. Robert Sirico has explained, the true goal of free markets is solidarity:

[W]e speak well of the market economy not because we embrace a soulless ideology about, or practice an idolatry of, the market. It is instead because of our respect for human liberty and our desire for social structures that affirm the dignity of all. This implies finding an economic system which, while providing outlets for human freedom in the marketplace, can also help alleviate poverty, increase general standards of living, respect private property, and minimize coercion. We seek economic growth, but not for its own sake. Our true goal is genuine human development through solidarity, ponent of which is economic growth. Genuine human development through solidarity implies growth that is aimed at human betterment and the furthering of mon good of all people. Growth must be for the increased welfare of munity and the individual, and not for the isolated improvement of a select few. This means that all must have the opportunity to choose and live in accord with their vocation. All must have access to the physical capital needed to earn a living, whether producing for their own consumption on a farm or producing for exchange in an enterprise where they earn a just wage. Such a system is, nearly by definition, a just economic order. The dignity of the human person leads us to conclude that a society in which we are free (in the sense explained above) is a just social order. The free market economy then is one aspect of this just social order through which we can achieve solidarity.

After all of this bashing of the free market, you can probably guess the solution Strain proposes will involve socialism. I give Strain credit, though, for loosely concealing it in the guise of syndicalism. Strain uses Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo anno to advocate for “State-established syndicates of workers and employers would work together, with the state acting as a judge of last resort when no agreement can be reached.”

As with all advocates of socialism, Strain believes something magical happens when you take freedom and power away from individuals and give them to state-controlled collectives. Whereas people were unable to freely choose to act in a way that advanced mon good, according to Strain, mon good will suddenly and magically e maximized by the state adjudicating how “workers and employers would work together.”

Strain says this will be an advancement over the way the “neoliberal conflation of mon good with so-called market freedom” which, he says, “leads to confusions.” His primary example is a panel discussion at the recent Acton University conference in which Rev. Sirico, “the president of the neoliberal Acton Institute criticized the creation of laws against child labor in Thailand.”

Again, I’ll try to give Strain the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn’t being intentionally dishonest. He does, after all, link to the video which allows us to see the full context of what Rev. Sirico said:

We think we can just fix the problem of child labor . . . my making laws in Thailand to abolish child labor that we’ve sent these kids off to nice schools and that’s not what happens. If they can’t work a factory—usually with their parents in homes— that what ends up happening is they’re trafficked, and you know that if you’ve worked with trafficking [organizations]. So I think that these kinds of things need to be looked at with a different lens, but with a moral concern not just with the economic concern but with the effects, the consequences of good and well intended legislation.

We see that Strain pletely misrepresented Rev. Sirico’s position, which does not “conflate mon good with so-called market freedom” but does the very thing Strain implores us to do: judge state interventions based on the standard of mon good.

Again, I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Strain or First Things (a publication I still admire). But this shows how easy it is for otherwise conservative outlets to promulgate the most economically ignorant claims.

A key problem is that magazines, think tanks, and non-profits are often staffed by the same type of cheap labor—young people who all went to the same elite (or semi-elite) schools, all live in the same liberal urban environs, and who have never done any real work outside of academia or have any real experience with business or the market economy. Often, these staffers have no economic background yet think they are qualified to pontificate on the problems with markets because they read a few old encyclicals.

In Catholic circles, they tend to align with (or at least sympathetic to) the recent Tradinista! manifesto.” As John Zmirak says,

To generalize, Tradinistas are mostly liberal arts grads that soaked in the political theories of pre-Christian philosophers who accepted slavery and scorned merce. Tradinistas have only the crudest understanding of economics. It’s a discipline they sneer at, because the truths it uncovers expose the hopelessness of utopia.

Instead, they quaff a few economically confused essays by writer and poet G.K. Chesterton, activist Dorothy Day, or theologian David Bentley Hart. They pretend that past papal reflections are infallible divine revelations. Then they act as if this dilettante’s hodgepodge makes up for their willful ignorance of the science of human cooperation — economics.

If the moldy and discredited ideas of the new breed of Christian socialists were quarantined on the left, it wouldn’t be so troubling. But if they can invade the former free market advocating institutions like First Things, then we are in danger of having them spread the contamination everywhere. It would be troubling enough to have these neo-socialists use the megaphones of the conservatism to miseducate their peers. But having an entire generation be deceived because they trusted the gatekeepers at formerly conservative outlets would be a travesty.

“Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed,” said Richard John Neuhaus. What he meant was that when beliefs about what are right and wrong are allowed to e optional, “the old orthodoxy that is optional is proscribed by the new orthodoxy, which is never optional.”

We may soon see a variation of “Neuhaus’s law” applied to the economic sphere. Because conservative Christians are too timid to defend the moral superiority of the free market system we may soon find that we have socialism forced upon us by those who we assumed were our allies.

Related:In October the Acton Institute will be sponsoring a conference titled,Toward a Free and Virtuous Society: Marxism a Century after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Chinese Government Destroys Church; Denies Persecution
Wenzhou, China, is known as the “Jerusalem of the East” because of its large Christian population, a population that had, until recently, enjoyed the Sanjiang Church for worship. A massive structure, Sanjiang Church took over 12 years to build and was a site of pilgrimage for Chinese Catholics. Last week, however, the Chinese government (which had previously lauded the structure’s architecture) deemed the structure “illegal” and destroyed the entire building, bricking off massive statues to hide them from sight. The...
Amnesty International: Release Nigerian Schoolgirls But Legalize Prostitution
Yesterday, Joe Carter wrote about Boko Haram, the terrorist group that has kidnapped hundreds of girls in Nigeria from the Christian school, and is now threatening to sell them into the sex trafficking trade. Salil Shetty, Secretary General of the human rights organization Amnesty International, is calling upon the Nigerian government to initiate a transparent investigation of the girls’ kidnapping and an immediate release of the girls. The horrific abduction shows the serious nature of violations of international humanitarian and...
Why McDonald’s Has Become a School for Remedial Work Skills
“Clean up your own mess. Your mother doesn’t work here.” That was a sign, printed on dot matrix printer paper, which hung in the breakroom of the McDonald’s where I worked. While that was nearly thirty years ago, I suspect that same sign is still there (though probably reprinted on a laser printer). But the idea behind it has changed. Your mother may not work at McDonalds, but pany—and others that hire low-skilled employees—are increasingly taking on the role of...
Explainer: Boko Haram and the Kidnapped Christian Girls
What is going on with the mass kidnappings of children in Nigeria? During the night of April 16, dozens of armed men from the terrorist group Boko Haram captured over 300 Christian girls aged 12 to 15 who were sleeping in dormitories at Chibok Government Girls Secondary School in northeast Nigeria. About 50 students managed to escape, but 276 were still being held according to Nigerian state police. The group has since captured 8 more girls. The kidnappers took the...
Poverty, Justice, and Christian Love
“We have replaced charity with humanitarianism, says Michael Matheson Miller in the first of this week’s Acton Commentary, “a hollowed-out secular and materialist vision of Christian love.” Concern for the poor is at the heart of Christianity. Saint John Paul II called poverty one of the greatest moral challenges of our time, and to ignore the plight of the poor has consequences for our eternal souls. Pope Francis addressed poverty in Evangelii Gaudium: “Almost without being aware of it, we...
Is Mass Incarceration the New Eugenics?
“Has the War on Drugs revived the 19th Century progressive crusade against ‘degenerates’?” asks Anthony Bradley in the second of this week’s Acton Commentary. The United States currently has over 2.3 million prisoners incarcerated in federal, state, and local jails around the country. According to an April report by the Sentencing Project, that number presents a 500 percent increase in incarcerations over the past 40 years. This increase produces “prison overcrowding and fiscal burdens on states to modate a rapidly...
The Bible and the Principle of Moral Proximity
“The Bible does say a lot of justice and the poor,” notes Kevin DeYoung, “but if we are to be convicted and motivated by truth, we must pay more careful attention to what the Bible actually does and does not say.” An example is a concept that DeYoung says can be derived from the Bible, the principle of moral proximity: The principle is pretty straightforward, but it is often overlooked: the closer the moral proximity of the poor the greater...
‘Destitute And Dying:’ A Human Trafficking Survivor’s Story
Rani Hong was a very young girl in rural India when her life was snatched away from her by human trafficking. In desperation, her mother allowed her to be taken away by a woman she thought she could trust, a woman who promised to care for Rami. And she did, for a while. However, the lure of money was too great and Rami was sold into human trafficking at age seven. I was taken to an area where I did...
Explainer: The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Government Prayer
What was the Greece vs. Galloway case about? The short answer: The constitutionality of saying religiously specific prayers (e.g., praying in Jesus name) at government meetings and functions. The (slightly) longer answer: In the town of Greece, located in upstate New York, the Town Board sessions were opened by a prayer from local clergy, mostly leaders of Christian congregations although in a few instances members of other faith traditions offered the invocation (a Jewish man, a Baha’i leader, and a...
Now Available: ‘On Exchange and Usury’ by Thomas Cajetan
Christian’s Library Press has released a new translation of two treatises on exchange and usury by Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534), a Dominican theologian, philosopher, and cardinal. Although best known for mentaries on the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan also wrote dozens of other works, including short treatises on socioeconomic problems. Published under the name On Exchange and Usury, these treatises reflect on the banking industry of the early modern era in the context of the Church’s usury doctrine, examining which transactions...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved