Experts Who Evaluate Socialism and Capitalism Don't Consider the One Key Thing and They Can't Because of the One Key Thing

The divide in the country now leading up to this election has spawned numerous conversations, many scholarly ones, to compare socialism and capitalism.  I've listened to some of them with intelligent historians, economists, philosophers, or sociologists.  One I heard started with the question of Joseph Schumpeter, written in 1942 in his book, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, "can capitalism survive?"  His answer was no.  Discussion ensues.

Against the theory of Marx, socialism would not spread across the world based upon class, because of the reality of nationalism or tribalism, whatever you want to call it.  The European Union fails from a similar cause now in the 21st century.  Regions, sections, states of Europe cannot agree with one another.  A lack of cohesion exists even with what some might think is the common cause of a similar class of people.  Religion is also a factor, that nasty old opiate of the people, and even property ownership.  Marx was wrong about class.  Other factors bring greater loyalty toward the failure of socialism.

There is still a general revulsion, a deep instinct, in the United States again socialism, the very word itself.  Will socialism win anyway despite the tradition of capitalism here?  I am asserting that people still don't want socialism.  That's not the problem for capitalism.

Capitalism features competition apparently in a free market.  Like any other competition, very often someone will cheat to win.  Rather than compete, it's easier to manipulate the referee or umpire to guarantee an outcome.

Some of the cheating to win occurs with apparent socialists, who are nothing more than crony capitalists, many well paid tenured university professors with little to no economic risk.  They sit on top of a feudalistic education system with virtual serfs propping them in their ivory castles.  These capitalists depend on the "virtue" of socialism to redistribute wealth through student loans with no guarantee of future success to their adherents.

Socialism brings with it a couple of requirements, sharing and a motivation to work hard.  Socialism doesn't give incentive.  People don't want to work harder if they can't keep what they earn.  They might share some of what they have, but this doesn't go very far.

In both systems, the leaders of the government who regulate the system turn corrupt.  They take advantage of their positions.  They're the referees who are manipulated or instead of sharing, they use their positions for greater power, prestige, and enrichment.

What is missing in the evaluation?  Sin.  Men are sinners.  Socialism will never work, but it still tempts people, because of the sin-induced failures of capitalism.  Milton Friedman said that capitalists hate socialism for everyone but themselves.  They want special rules applied for themselves that give them a competitive advantage, but they want the rules applied justly to everybody else.

Capitalism depends on sacrifice to succeed.  The winners need to reach out and help the losers.  Even if everybody worked as hard as they could, some will not be able to compete, because they lack the intelligence, skill, or abilities.  They need help.   Love is demanded in successful capitalism.  This was built into the law of God in the Old Testament, but sin still stops it from succeeding.  Sin separates men from abiding in the love of God that would bring success to that system.

Socialism at its root is sinful.  A man who doesn't work shouldn't eat.  It is unjust, because the hardest workers are punished for trying harder.  It could never succeed, but capitalism can't either without love.  Selfishness lies at the root of the failure of capitalism.  The failure to consider sin, the failure even to mention sin, indicates a failure in evaluation of socialism and capitalism.

The sin itself in the experts themselves stops them from including sin in their evaluation.  They don't mention the source of all goodness, God, and His place in the success of any system.  They cut themselves off from sin, because they leave God and His Word out of their evaluation.

The refusal or inability to mention sin and God perhaps arises from a Marxist tendency to exclude the supernatural.  It's just an opiate, a dreamy hallucination, not a real answer.  The real answers come in concrete data and double blind tested laboratory conclusions.  In fact, this is just Satan blinding the minds of them who are lost.

Marx saw religion as an anesthesia against the instinct of revolution.  People would content themselves with pie in the sky and allow the abuse of the rich, so he hated religion.  Marx is still playing scholars, who can't mention supernatural or salvific factors for societal cohesion.  These are the "bitter clingers" of President Obama.  In fact, the supernatural effects upon the United States has fueled both a work ethic and a charity that comes closest to an ideal reflected in the image of God in man.

Every evaluation could end with Jesus Christ and rightly so.  His kingdom is the only true solution to the failures of man's systems.  For now, Jesus saves from sin's penalty and power.  In the future, He will deliver His creation, groaning for its day of redemption.