QUESTION: Tom Joseph

Marx defined communism as the abolition of private property but communist countries and today many of the liberal democratic countries adopted state capitalism. Abolition of private property existed in the first Christian communities as is witnessed in the Acts of the Apostles. Why did it disappear in Christian communities and live in coenobitic religious communities? How important is Communism as an ideal of living together?

ANSWER: Jacob Parappally MSFS

Private ownership of anything gives a false identity to the owner. In the course of time, whatever one owns takes control over the mind of the one who owns it. From the beginning of human history till today the owned owns the owner. Only by sheer detachment from and indifference to what one owns only can free humans to be truly themselves. The story of Job in the Book of Job in the Old Testament and the parable of the rich fool in the New Testament (Luke 12:13-21) present two contrasting characters, the former has a complete detachment to the things he possesses and even to his own children but the latter considers the produce of the land his own to enjoy life! In the final analysis private ownership of anything does not promote communion and at the same time commonly owned property does not enthuse hard work or responsibility of the individual for caring for the common good.

Marx defined Communism as abolition of private property not for building communion among people but in view of establishing an egalitarian society where each one receives according to his or her needs and from each one is demanded contributions to the common good according to one’s ability. In all societies where the rich and the powerful who are only a miniscule minority owned a large part of the landed-property and natural resources are their private property as well as exploiting and oppressing a large majority of the poor people making them work as their slaves or serfs, Marxian call for the abolition of private property was good news for the poor and the exploited. Call for the abolition of private property by whatever means available fair or foul, violent or non-violent was purely for the material benefits of all individuals in society. The history of communist nations show that they achieved the abolition of the right to private property more by violence and bloodshed. Abolition of private property was not to promote communion among people which can never be secured by force.

State Capitalism of Communist Countries

Many of the Communist countries all over the world and liberal democratic countries have adopted state capitalism mostly for political interests. It is believed that a German Socialist Liebknecht had coined the term state capitalism in the 19th century. According to him, “Nobody has combated State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I that State Socialism is really State Capitalism”. Even State Socialism is unjust and exploitative when it is State Capitalism. Here the only difference is that State has taken over the place of private owners. Marxian communism abolished private property claiming that all workers are liberated from their bondage of the exploiting bourgeois class which owned most of the wealth of the land and all means of production. But the State Capitalism of the Communist Countries exploit the workers today, perhaps, more ruthlessly with political power behind it.

What is State Capitalism? When a State takes over the ownership and management of all important means of production as well as any new enterprises, it is State Capitalism. It controls all strategic industries and has minority shares in other industries. The idealism of Communism of liberating the proletariat from the power of bourgeoisie was only an attractive slogan that enthused the working class to embrace Communism but eventually what they have got is only the difference of their masters. They continue to be exploited as before and they were even in a worse situation that they have no freedom to say, “No”. Under the former masters they could refuse to work if they did not want. They may go hungry if they do not work. But in the Communist State they have no choice but to work. In State capitalism, there is no “dictatorship of the proletariat”, workers are still wage earners. In Communist countries that practice state capitalism, the proletariat is identified with the Communist Party and their dictatorship is that of the Communist party.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, most of the countries that formed the Soviet Union, including Russia adopted State Capitalism . China is the best example of a communist country adopting State Capitalism with much success so far. However, the freedom of the individuals as understood and exercised in democratic countries are denied wherever the Communist Party holds the power over the state and practice state capitalism. Certain economic liberalization and privatization are permitted but not to the extent of unlimited possibilities to amass wealth as in the capitalist countries. However, it was a jettisoning of the original communist vision of the abolition of private property. Commenting on the retreat of communism by the end of 1980’s and the beginning of 1990s, Francis Fukuyama, eminent American political scientist and political economist says, that it was “not just the end of the cold war, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” He seems to be saying that the original communist ideology of an egalitarian society and sharing of the property together after overcoming the oppressive feudal system of masters and serfs was an evolution of human mind. But already in many tribal societies of earlier times and even in our own times in many parts of the world such egalitarian societies without private property exist. The communist ideology was, in fact, a recapturing of the ideal Christian community which was formed by the offering of the private property of each believer to have everything in common(Acts of the Apostles 4:32-36). This community was formed by the free choice of those who encountered the Risen Jesus and its foundation was love. In contrast, the communist societies or communities were formed by force, violence and blood-shed, its foundation was class-war and hatred. As long as Communism is based on force, fear and hatred, it cannot survive as a humanizing ideology. It rejected God and religion because it considered God and religion as supporting and justifying the exploitation of the poor and supplying religion as an opium to the oppressed majority that they would not be able to revolt against the oppressors. The communists refuse to accept that a God who is not a liberator of humans from their shackles is not a true God or a religion which supports oppression is perversion of true religion. The God, the Christians believe is the One who sides with the oppressed and who raises up men and women to liberate people from those who oppress and exploit them and it is a God who desires that humans live in genuine communion through self-emptying love. The early Christian community in the Acts of the Apostles was such type of a community.

Christian Communism in the Early Church

Christian communism practised in the early Church was a life of communion or koinonia among those who encountered the risen Jesus and found themselves a part of his risen life and all others as brothers and sisters belonging to the same Body of Christ. The evangelist Luke who is also the author the Acts of the Apostles narrates vividly how this community lived in a few verses. “Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:32 – 5:1 ).

The community had everything they needed for their life.
It is clearly stated that there was no one in need. The specific way the common property was secured is explained by stating that they sold their possessions and brought to the apostles. Their communion among themselves by self-emptying love for one another was a powerful witness to the resurrection of Christ. Only transformed and evolved humans can overcome their egoism, addictions to wealth, pleasure, power and honour. Such transformations cannot be effected by political power or military force. It is achieved only through God’s grace and humans’ self-surrender to God and actualized in kenotic or self-emptying love for one another. We do not know how long it continued to exist. As the cause of its beginning was the expectation of the imminent Parousia or the immediate second coming of Jesus it did not survive because they realized that he was not coming soon to establish the Kingdom and liberate them from foreign rule. Only later it dawned on them that his Kingdom is not of this world and the liberation is not from foreign rule but from sin. So they might have abandoned the commune and began to settle down in life as before.

Why didn’t such an ideal community didn’t continue and evolve into Christian way of life for all Christians of all times and challenging the world to adopt this way of life Probably, it was difficult for them to sustain themselves in a hostile world that opposed such an ideal community and made it difficult for them to survive. In the early 12th century Waldensians, a Christian group held property in common but they were persecuted and in the same century there was a group of Christians in Northern Italy who held their property in common and advocated the abolition of feudalism and even hierarchy in the Church. Certainly, they too were made to disappear soon. In the 16th century England, St Thomas More wrote in his book Utopia that property must be held in common and should be administered by leaders through the application of reason. In the same century Thomas Muentzer led a kind of Christian communist movement during the German Peasant’s War, which was studied by both Marx and Engels. Marxian communism is, in fact, a perversion of Christian universalist vision that humankind is one as there is only one God who created all humans equal and provides everything for their unfolding as humans if they live in communion with one another and share everything according to one’s needs.

Jesus’ teaching that one cannot serve two masters both God and money was taken seriously by the early Church opting for God and not for money. Paul’s letter to Timothy expresses it further when he says, “For the love of money is the root of all evils… (I Tim 6:10). The Church always supported the right to private property but never supported the capitalist economic system as it is based on greed and direct and indirect exploitation of the weak and the vulnerable. However, during the time of reformation John Calvin and the Calvinists theologically justified capitalism and Calvin is called the father of capitalism. Calvin’s theology of election and predestination not only gave rise to capitalism but also to individualism. The Calvinists also called Puritans preached that the Church and priesthood are not needed for salvation but those who are predestined for salvation needs to achieve it. It insisted on hard work and use of reason to acquire everything one needs and increase it even without leisure. Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism, argued that religion is the source of a culture’s economic and social ethos. He showed that the Protestant countries have progressed economically than the Catholic countries. According to Aldous Huxley, “The Reformers read their Old Testament and, trying to imitate the Jews, became those detestable Puritans to whom we owe,…all that was and still is vilest, cruellest, most antihuman in the modern capitalist system.’ Calvinists used the monastic idealism of work and pray without being contaminated by the world of pleasure and indiscipline and lived this ideal without separating from the world but for their economic prosperity. The prosperity gospel preached by many today has the same basis. The early Christian communities’ living together succeeded in having everything in common but the capitalist societies that originated from a false interpretation of the biblical teaching ended up in creating individualism and greed in human beings craving for amassing unlimited wealth without any care for one’s brother or sister. The early Christian communities’ life of communion having everything in common survived only in coenobitic or monastic communities even till today.

Monastic Communism and Monastic Capitalism

Communism as a political ideology and economic system introduced by Karl Max and Engels is not an ideal system for humans to live together in harmony and peace bringing out the best in humans. First of all, it is not a free choice of individual persons but it is imposed on them and humans resist what is imposed on them. Secondly, a purely materialist ideology does not satisfy human beings’ search for the ultimate meaning in their lives. Certainly, no true communion can be brought about without a conversion of humans from their evil tendencies like, egoism, greed, desire for ownership, power, pleasure etc. But with true conversion and faith in Jesus Christ one is able to detach oneself from all those worldly interests and one’s own false self and can build communion by self-emptying love for others and not holding anything as one’s own. From the time of St Benedict of Nursia (480 -547) who founded the monastic life with the motto ora et labora work and pray, having everything in common like the early Christian community, so many orders and apostolic congregations of religious life continue to live the same ideal of the early Christian community even to our day. It would hopefully continue in the future in spite of dwindling vocations to this way life. Monastic communism lives the ideal of communion without claiming anything as one’s own and by working hard for the common good of everyone in the community and offering oneself to the self-emptying service of others in obedience to the command of the leader of the community. Monastic communism let each member of the community to unfold his or her talents and unfold themselves for the welfare of others. The members of the community consider themselves divinely called to this way of life and joined this community without any external forces or internal compulsions. Therefore, the early Christian communism survives in the monastic communism of today.

Monastic capitalism from the middle-ages to our day drains the credibility of monastic communism. It is true that the members of the monastic or religious communities do not own any private property. They have everything in common. It so happened in the Middle Ages, nobles and rulers dumped a lot of wealth in the monasteries and many of them were built in palatial style. With the entering of Mammon in the monasteries there was a decadence of monastic life or religious life. Only a few orders and apostolic religious congregations could withstand such temptations holding on to their original charism. In our times, a large majority of the religious congregations have wealth and they are seeking ways and means to increase it by running profitable institutions. Members are poor in the sense they have no private property but the Congregations are rich and are following monastic capitalism at the cost of witnessing to the Kingdom values for which they have dedicated themselves. Influenced by the institutional wealth individual religious themselves live an elite life-style. Challenging such a worldly life-style of some religious St. Francis de Sales says: “If we renounce everything to have whatever we wish; if we make ourselves poor by entering religious life and desire that we lack nothing; if we take the vow of poverty and do not want to feel any inconvenience; and what is worse, if we seek in religious life what we could not find in the world; and in spite of the vow of poverty, if we claim greater comforts and conveniences than those we had before we made ourselves poor; my God! What a blameworthy, ineffective and meaningless poverty that is!”

Many times, monastic capitalism of religious communities is an anti-witness to Christ and his values. But monastic communism letting the full flowering of genuine communion and sharing everything in common always remain a credible witness to Christ and God’s dream for humans!