Chuck Bentley educates us here on the Bible's perspective on socialism.
I'm not a fan of socialism or communism — and neither is the Bible. Throughout the scripture, from the first pages of Genesis, God gives men and women resources for their use — for their good and the good of others.
1 Timothy 5:8 says, "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
The responsibility was given to the individual, not delegated to the government.
... Socialism insinuates that the person who works is not deserving of the reward and breeds resentment against those who have success and it also weakens the connection between work and reward. Fundamentally, it violates the 10th commandment, "thou shalt not covet," by encouraging people to look at what others have, deciding what should be taken away. But to build lasting wealth and resources, labor is required.
As Christians, we are called to work to the best of our ability, to care for our families and those in need around us. Our work is one way that we communicate to the world around us what a life submitted to Christ can be. We want to honor God with our efforts. Colossians 3:23 puts it well: "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters."
Got Questions ministries elaborates here on the inherent flaws of socialism and communism ...
There are at least four errors in Marx’s thinking. First, his assertion that another person’s gain must come at another person’s expense is a myth; the structure of capitalism leaves plenty of room for all to raise their standard of living through innovation and competition. It is perfectly feasible for multiple parties to compete and do well in a market of consumers who want their goods and services.
Second, Marx was wrong in his belief that the value of a product is based on the amount of labor that is put into it. The quality of a good or service simply cannot be determined by the amount of effort a laborer expends. For example, a master carpenter can more quickly and beautifully make a piece of furniture than an unskilled craftsmen can, and therefore his work will be valued far more (and correctly so) in an economic system such as capitalism.
Third, Marx’s theory necessitates a government that is free from corruption and negates the possibility of elitism within its ranks. If history has shown anything, it is that power corrupts fallen mankind, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A nation or government may kill the idea of God, but someone will take God’s place. That someone is most often an individual or group who begins to rule over the population and seeks to maintain their privileged position at all costs.
Fourth and most importantly, Marx was wrong that a person’s identity is bound up in the work that he does. Although secular society certainly forces this belief on nearly everyone, the Bible says that all have equal worth because all are created in the image of the eternal God. That is where true, intrinsic human value lies.
Was Marx right? Is economics the catalyst that drives human history? No, what directs human history is the Creator of the universe who controls everything, including the rise and fall of every nation. In addition, God also controls who is put in charge of each nation, as Scripture says, “The Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Daniel 4:17). Further, it is God who gives a person skill at labor and the wealth that comes from it, not the government: “Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God” (Ecclesiastes 5:18–19).
Finally, Stella Morabita cautions us here to examine its bloody history before jumping on the socialism bandwagon.
Nikolai Bukharin was executed by shooting in Moscow on March 15, 1938. He had been revered as a giant of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, as one who even worked side by side with Vladimir Lenin himself. Alas, Bukharin’s Marxist chickens had come home to roost by the time he was shot like a dog during Josef Stalin’s reign of terror. His execution marked the pinnacle of Stalin’s show trials of high-level officials.
You see, Bukharin invested in building a political system that inevitably puts the reins of power into the hands of just a few strongmen who end up calling all the shots. It’s a system in which suspicion and the smell of treason tend to hang in the air.
Socialism, by the way, is just such a system. This is the case whether you call it by any other name, whether communism, utopianism, or collectivism. Oh, go ahead and slap some lipstick on that pig and call it “democratic” socialism or “progressivism” or “communitarianism.”
Lenin and his gang all started out calling themselves socialists. Social democrats, to be exact. So the fact remains: the path of socialism is ultimately paved with coercion, censorship, and, yes, terror.
Socialism and communism both involve ceding to the state control over the distribution of goods and services for the masses. This involves giving up individual rights, and giving the state a good measure of control over our personal lives. This road always leads to tyranny, no matter what you pave it with, and no matter what you name it.
Socialism requires a power clique—or, as Lenin put it, an elite ‘vanguard’—in order to pretend to function.
Socialism requires a power clique—or, as Lenin put it, an elite “vanguard”—in order to pretend to function. This means going heavy on executive power and rubber-stamp light on the legislative. Socialism demands that we place blind trust in whoever takes the reins of power to distribute society’s goods and services. This tiny elite, by the way, typically enjoys enormous privileges and a much higher standard of living than the hoi polloi, simply by being a part of the elite “nomenklatura.”
Sure, this oligarchy claims to distribute in the name of “equality.” That’s typically the cover story. The historical fact is that the vanguard, the power clique, eventually takes control of everything that’s produced—medicine, education, housing, food, transportation, etc. Its members then bureaucratically ration out—as they see fit—the means of human survival. In the end, you’ve basically got an elite corps of mobsters with the power to decide which folks are more equal than others ...
We need to remember that, when soft socialism with its siren song of “equality” is left to its own devices, it takes ever more rigid forms. The political hubris of “progressives” who know better than you and me—and with such utter certainty—always leads to central control, corruption, cronyism, censorship, and abject conformity.
The more than 100 million victims of communism shows just how slippery a slope socialism is. Any person of goodwill who is familiar with the history and realities of socialism would do everything possible to avoid going down that minefield of a road.
The article is must-reading in entirety.