In ML 326, Restorative Justice and Communities of Reconciliation, Dr. Cioffi asked my cohort to imagine that genuinely ethical Marxists achieved absolute political power. I replied that those ethical Marxists would promptly die at the hands of unethical Marxists, as usual. He concurred sadly, then moved on. Yet Marxism still holds strong appeal, despite an eight-figure body count and a legacy of economic devastation. What, exactly, keeps pulling Marxism out of the dustbin of history?

The sheer ugliness of capitalism struts forward to answer that question. Capitalism as the historical Marx knew it was quite a beast. We know capitalism as moderated by social welfare safety nets, unions and powerful regulations. Marx knew it at the height of colonialism and industrialization. He strove to reform. He wrote, tragically, with atheistic disdain for religion. As Merold Westphal explains, in Suspicion & Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism (123-217), Marx evaluated religion only from its evident functions in society. By that measure, the Church enabled many evils.  

As Westphal opines, Marx echoes Amos, the Old Testament prophet. Unfettered human greed horrified us in the time of Amos, still did in the time of Marx, and horrifies us still.  Contemporary Marxists speak of ‘late capitalism,’ as if capitalism fades away by and by.  Capitalism is not going anywhere. Economic activity always produces surplus and shortage, opportunity and crisis, innovation and obsolescence. Having the wit and wherewithal to seize advantages in it all is capitalism. In both Marxism and capitalism, there are winners and losers.  Winners attract attention, envy and resentment. Bad winners inspire reformers.

In Chimes, Volume 120, Issue 15, “Open Dialogue or Othering? The Stakes of TPUSA’s Return,” Lyons lists three tenets of Turning Point USA. The third of these claims that capitalism “is the most moral and proven economic system ever discovered.” I disagree with TPUSA’s characterization of capitalism as moral. People can be moral, or immoral. Economic systems, like capitalism and Marxism, are inherently amoral. Marxists can be moral or amoral; likewise with capitalists. Dr. Cioffi’s “ethical Marxists” thought experiment is unlike asking the class to imagine square circles or wet fire.

For Marx, an ethical capitalist is a contradiction in terms. The historical Marx observed a radical transformation of economic forces, and drew radical conclusions from all-too-human exploitation of that historic aberration. What keeps Marxism alive owes nothing to that.  Distinguish the historical Marx from the rhetorical Marx. The historical Marx would have screamed in horror, had he known the smallest part of what rhetorical Marx caused. Screamed, and then burned everything he ever wrote. Pity him; spare his spirit further shame. Calvin alumnus Emil Sporcic observes that genuine Marxism, as Marx intended it to work, has a body count of zero, because it has never actually been used, anywhere. I doubt that it ever will be, as a great many people tried very hard to do it in a wide variety of settings. It just does not work.

Another Calvin graduate, C.J. Strausbaugh, noted that capitalism and communism share a common foundation in human greed. Certainly, we find ways to exploit any economic system.  However, we err by projecting our greed onto dispassionate systems. Capitalism never made any of us greedy. Marxism did not make us greedy, either. Fallen humanity is just greedy.

I concur with TPUSA in result. Capitalism is just as amoral as Marxism, but capitalism produces abundance enough for philanthropy. If Marx never met an ethical capitalist, I have.  They provide much of the funding for the Calvin Prison Initiative (CPI). Marx famously dismissed religion as the opiate of the masses, an ideology contrived by the wealthy to keep the poor obedient. However, Marx analyzed superficially. His atheism unduly biased him. He took the abuse of religion as the norm. Had Marx judged fatherhood by the same standard, he would never have dared to sire children. Even his most virulent critics admit that Marx was a doting father.  

In Matthew 19:16-26, Jesus articulates the greedless reproach of wealth. The rich young man loves wealth more than God. Wealth is his idol. Jesus instructs him to give up that idol. The CPI donors impress me as wealthy people determined to be good stewards of their wealth, not idolaters. Capitalism facilitates their ethical stewardship. Marxism would seize their wealth, and, through systemic incompetence, squander it. Jesus did not tell His disciples to seize the rich young man’s wealth and distribute it to the poor. God, Owner of all Creation, is no thief.

In conclusion, we need more of these ethical capitalists, to serve God as good stewards of wealth. The ethical capitalist shuns both the larceny of Marxism and the idolatry of wealth.  Learn from Ananias and Sapphira, from Acts 5, who exhibited the worst traits of both systems: feigning generosity while worshipping money.