1. The Naked Promise

Thus, the socialist argues that it is better to sacrifice the rights and values of an individual if by such sacrifice the masses are served - hence, the inevitable conclusion that ownership 4 - THIS BREAD IS MINE of property, especially productive property, must be on a collective basis. The thought of an individual profiting by his own efforts, while the mass-man appears not to profit, is abhorrent to. all sincere socialists. The individualist likewise serves himseH with pragmatic reasoning. He concludes that any action which harms one individual must, if the process is multiplied, harm all indi viduals. His views of morals and ethics are essentially derived from the basis of results achieved, but with the results applied to individuals rather than to society as a whole. No sincere individualist can condone the sacrifice of any individual's rights or values, even though in such sacrifice a majority of others may appear to benefit. The individualist takes a longer view, believing that if justice is to manifest, the sacrifice of one must be followed by a sacrifice of all. He recognizes that a single instance of sacrifice might not harm society as a whole. But he is unwilling to adopt a policy which, by the application of whim or expedient, might subsequently make him the victim of the sacrifice. Since the expedient of THE NAKED PREMISE - 5 "good for the whole" opens the door to "harm for the one,"

he discovers in such a policy a universal threat to his own rights and values. In such an uncertain climate, he sees that any individual may suddenly, and through no fault of his own, find himself the target of "social leveling." Therefore, he con cludes that the rules· to govern society must be promulgated on a base which is consistent with the best interests of each individual in society. To hold to the contrary would effectively eliminate all human values and rights. In fact, as the indi vidualist reasons it, any action taken by mass man which harms a single individual, has in large measure destroyed the rights and values of all other individuals. He would, in fact, prefer to run the occasional risk of one individual in society becoming a predator against another member of society, than support a doctrine which makes society itself a predator a gainst any individual in that society.

Irrespective of the isolation of a single act of injustice perpetrated by "society" against an individual, no individua list can support it. He disdains to follow a doctrine wherein 6 - THIS BREAD IS MINE the many can find it to their advantage to favor the sacrifice of a few. He would prefer a doctrine, similar to the Golden Rule, in which it is to the advantage of each individual to gain only through self-discipline and self-control; to acquire wealth or position by the practice of thrift and personal virtue. He insists that if a certain climate of individual human rights and values is adopted, it will be to the advantage of all to comport themselves reasonably well in this climate. On the other hand, if the uncertain climate of mass rights and mass values is substituted, then he sees there can be no fixed conditions which would encourage the practice of individual thrift and personal virtue. This is true because in dealing with society as a whole he is confronted by the baneful influences of mob psychology; by the ease with which each individual can avoid personal responsibility for his actions; by the lust and greed of some who hope to use the anonymity of mob action for their own aggrandizement.

The socialist is apt to tote up the consequences of actions in the following manner: Given an act of injustice which is' · THE NAKED PREMISE-7 harmful to 100 persons, but beneficent to 101 persons, the socialist concludes that such an act should be performed be cause it will bring a larger benefit (by one person) than it will bring harm. The individualist, on the contrary, would take the posi tion that an act of injustice which injured one person must not be performed even though a thousand others, or any number of others, might benefit thereby. The individualist would point out that a society which believed in injuring even one person for the benefit of others would be a society of cannibals. Each individual's rights are absolute. The conflict between the two doctrines finds itself at once in an arena of morals and ethics. Let us examine, now, the socialist ethic structure, noting both its virtues and its violations.

The Socialist Ethic Premise Here is this remarkable celestial sphere, which orbits the sun of a relatively minor solar system once every 365 and a 8 - THIS BREAD IS MINE fraction days. This orb we call earth. It is composed of X a mounts of land area and Y amounts of water area. These amounts may tend to shift during great global cataclysms, but failing such tremendous natural upheavals, the ratio between land and water remains, to all practical purposes, a constant. It is unlikely that man, even by prodigious efforts, can effectively alter this ratio. True, the Dutch have built dikes and by holding back the sea have managed to regain some thing approximating 40 square miles of useful terrain which, sans dikes, would be flooded by the sea at high tide. It is possible that other peoples in future times will push back th~ sea a few miles here or there. This possibility in no way dis turbs the fundamental premise. The basic ratio holds with these possible deviations.

Man is a land animal. His natural habitat is found on those surfaces of this planet which give a solid footing and which are not forbidden him by extremes of temperature, aridness or fluidity. Again, it could be noted that man has managed to overcome some of his basic difficulties in dealing THE NAKED PREMISE - 9 with the non-land surfaces and the land surfaces which are normally hostile to him. But these minor deviations in no way destroy the fact that man's natural habitat is terra firma, and that on the land surfaces he survives best in temperate zones and at altitudes below 7,000 feet. If we permit X to represent all the inhabitable land of earth, and if we cause A to represent all of the people who are on the earth at this time, then we have a constant - the relationship between total number of people and total amounts of land available for purposes of survival. It becomes a simple arithmetic problem to discover just how much land would be available for each person if it were to be shared pro-rata.

It is at once obvious that man's material well-being is directly related to the numbers of persons living at a given moment and the amount of suitable land available for all of them. The equation could be shown thus: f = MMW. All of the land, divided equally among all of mankind, is equated with man's material well-being. Such a division will provide 10 - THIS BREAD IS MINE a moral footing for a society of equal shares. This is socialist thinking. The purist of socialist convic tion would hold that each human being should be entitled to a pro-rata share of the livable land areas; that any human being who obtained more than this precise amount would have obtained it through criminal action of one sort or another, since he could not possibly have a moral· claim. upon it. Likewise, it would be held that any person who had less than his pro-rata share has, through some type of criminality, been deprived of what is rightfully his.

This highly theoretical and idealistic fallacy has long been abandoned by socialists. But it is important that it be stated, for despite its abandonment, socialist minds continue to polar ize themselves to the false notion. They now admit that the attainment of such a system is totally impossible. Yet, having admitted it, they strive to come as close to the impossibility as can practically be achieved. The reason for the abandonment is obvious. No two pieces of land are of equal value. Some land has a multiplicity of THE NAKED PREMISE -11 uses and as such is highly desirable for dwelling purposes, commerce, manufacture, agriculture, mining and the like. Other parcels have scarcely any use at all. And the fluctua tions of usage, varying from age to age, and from .clime to clime, make anything like a simple arithmetic division of land on a per capita basis not only futile but ridiculous. Thus, to arrive at a just distribution of the X in the equation is impossible.

However, the socialist has no better luck when he at tempts to postulate the equality, and therefore the deserving ness, of the A in the equation, man. Like the land, human beings contain in their individual natures enormous variables. Some men have numerous attributes and skills which serve to enhance their worth. Others appear to have few if any such virtues. Alas, the socialist at this point of his thinking would have to abandon his entire premise and dismiss the whole theory as an impractical though roseate dream, were it not for the emer~ence of a second idea, which has been promoted skill12 - THIS BREAD IS MINE fully and with vigor, particularly during the past several centuries. The second idea, which is sort of a defense in depth be hind the false premise of human equalness and the equally false notion of equal land division, is that what may not be equal by nature, can be made equal by legislation.

Summons to Violence Here the socialist enjoys his most exhilarating moment. If it is true, and it is demonstrably true, that the world has been so ordered that at the beginning, land and people are unequal, then the equality can be obtained at the end, by force, rather than at the beginning by division. This is a delightful idea to any person who wishes to intervene in the lives of others. The socialist now confines himself not to production, but to distribution. He is no longer interested in trying to obtain either land or human equality as a fixed condition, on which to base his theories. He is con tent with the inequalities as he finds them.

THE NAKED PREMISE -13 But, by the power of legislation, he will take the in equalities and from the end product work backward, hewing and hacking until everything is leveled to a desirable sameness. Let one man produce $100,000 worth of goods and a second man only $15,000 in a corresponding period of time. What does it matter? The socialist can step in, take 90% from the first man, 33lh % from the second man, leaving both with the value of $10,000, and meanwhile he can distribute the balance to a number of persons who have produced nothing, and at the same time pay himself a fine wage for managing the distribution. Here is the emergence of-the socialist ethic. It is this. No human being on this planet is entitled to more of the good things that this planet provides than any other human being. If one man produces more than he needs, it is of benefit to all that he be compelled to share the excess with others. Nor can this be considered a robbery, for if we return to the first myth, we find that no man has a right to more than any other man and, consequently, if a man produces more than he him14-THIS BREAD IS MINE self needs, it follows that he has produced it for others and no time should be lost in getting it into the hands of others.

So here is the socialist world with a moral base which is pleasing to socialists. It has both an economic and political application. The commandments are two in number - the first, economic; the second, political: Thou shalt have no more than the least of thy fellows; and, to cause those who have more than others, to give up what they have for the benefit of others, is the highest virtue. There is too large a tendency in non-socialist circles to greet these commandments with contempt and without grasp ing the socialist motivation. Whether the facts of life coincide with these beliefs is not altogether the only thing to be con sidered. There is a sort of goodnesss here, a longing for love and compassion, a belief that men should help each other, a sort of high-minded missionaryism which is aimed at obviating the miseries of the poverty-stricken, the lowly, the poorly paid and the humble. That this doctrine· has an appeal to a THE NAKED PREMISE -15 large segment of the people of this planet is attested to on every hand.

We have only to observe the socialist legislation passed in the last three decades in virtually every governmentalized society in the world to recognize its wide appeal. Christian Beginninfs We have only to peer into the Christian doctrine to find that from the time the apostles began to preach, a sort of socialist longing pervades much of the gospel teachings. "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all· things common. "And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things, that were ~old, 16-THIS BREAD IS MINE "And laid them down at the apostle's feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

(The Acts IV, 32-35) This had a most persuasive effect upon the new converts. "But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, "And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostle's feet. "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? thou hast not lied unto men but unto God. "And Ananias hearing' these words, fell down, and gave up the ghost; and great fear came on all of them that heard these things." (The Acts V, 1-5) THE NAKED PREMISE-I7 Nor. did this terrible and apparently divine punishment descend upon Ananias alone, but the scriptures go on to re veal that his wife returned about three hours later, not knowing that her husband was already dead and buried.

Peter accuses her of trying to retain a portion of what was hers and confronts her with her husband's death. Sapphira obligingly falls dead, too. This double catastrophe inflicted apparently from on high, must have assisted the early fund-raising efforts enormously, and served the cause of total sharing. One can imagine the fear which swept these early socialists as they whispered among themselves the dread punishment to overtake any person who attempted to keep more .of this world's goods than his fellows. But one must look to modem times to find as bold and revolutionary an utterance as is found in the scriptures in the book of James. Chapter II, 5-6 reads: "Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

18 - THIS BREAD IS MINE "But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?" And to conclude this theme we find in Chapter V, verses 1-4, the author of the book of James saying: "Go to now, ye rich m~n, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. "Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth eaten. "Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. You have heaped treasure together for the last days. "Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth." A modem labor leader would have to extend himself to surpass this socialist acid. There. is small wonder, in the face of such teachings, that sOcialism flourishes. 'When mankind's moSt beautiful THE NAKED PREMISE -19 and exalted religion, together with its most advanced and progressive governments, alike adopt creeds of this sort, the popularity of any kind of share-the-wealth scheme is easily predictable.

So, it is insufficient to sneer at the socialist ethic and pronounce it unnatural, unrealistic and destructive both of men's goods and men's ambitions. True Radicals Are Individualists Methodist Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, who has frequently been the target of scorn, and others active in the social gospel work have a sound footing deep within the history of the early church. We may discover, with the advantage of per spective and the penetration of research, that Oxnam and his numerous cohorts are the true conservatives of the faith and are attempting to adhere to the fundamental socialism of the first devotees of Christianity. Likewise, it may prove that the rising tide of alleged conservatism in ·the theology of Christendom is, in fact, the radical element which is seeking 20 - THIS BREAD IS MINE not to maintain the tradition of the early church, but to write a new one, based more upon the sound economics of the parable of the talents than upon the socialist teachings and practices of the apostles.

In modern times the schism in our churches is growing more apparent with each passing day. The radical element, led by such ecclesiastics as the Reverend Carl McIntire of Collingswood, New Jersey, the Reverend James W. Fifield, Jr., of the First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, the Reverend Howard E. Kershner of "Christian Economics," and scores of others who are at odds with socialism, has decorated the individualist position with high purpose and integrity. There .are numerous lay organizations, also, which have endeavored to emphasize sound economics and the individu alist view. Among these are Spiritual Mobilization of San Jacinto, California, the American Council of Christian Lay men led by Verne P. Kaub of Madison, Wisconsin, and the Circuit Riders of the Methodists under the leadership of M. G. Lowman of Cincinnati.

THE NAKED PREMISE - 21 Despite these radical antisocialist efforts, by all odds the largest and most powerful (numerically) side is that of the socialist phalanx. The ecumenical movement designed to create a world church, to merge all gospel teachings into a single controlled center, and to further the social concepts of sharing wealth, .has gained ground steadily. The conser vatives who seek to preserve the Christian ethic as some thing favorable to socialism, have obtained the advantage, both of weight and finances. On the Catholic side of the Christian front the schism is not as clearly defined. From the rise of Marxism in the 19th century, Catholics have disdained in· the main to suc cumb to the blandishments of the share-the-wealthers. Still, the modern labor movement represents their Achilles' heel. There are a few who, including Dean Clarence Manion, have stood their ground against the collusion represented by a combine of big labor and big government with the inevitable erosion of individual freedom. But there are only a few.

From the standpoint of human liberty and individual freedom, however, the church in general is no longer a refuge.

22 - THIS BREAD IS MINE Early Beginnings If we consider the early history of the Christian church, it preserves its most tender and appealing record in service to the poor. Nor would it be either accurate or just to ascribe the preaching against wealth exclusively to the apostles. Matthew, who brings us the Sermon on the Mount, has Christ begin his admonitions: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." Luke has our Lord extending the thought in his XIV Chapter, 12, 13 and 14 verses. "Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a re compense be made thee. "But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: "And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."

THE NAKED PREMISE - 23 Economists who review our Lord's summation are confronted with the melancholy duty of concluding that a reason able exchange between contemporaries or equals is somehow less desirable than an outright grant to the improvident and the unfortunate. Yet, in the same instant the economist recognizes the moral certainty of any voluntary two-way exchange, and dis covers an area of uncertainty, so far as morality is concerned, when any kind of something-for-nothing philosophy is invoked. The problem becomes acute when the economic phi losopher recognizes that the arrangement advocated is a something-for-nothing arrangement only insofar as the two active persons in the transaction are concerned, for an ex change is promised. If A will give to B in this world and B is unable to return the favor, A should rejoice, because C, in the next life, will reward A. What happens to B in the next life is uncertain.

But this is strange economic counselling. B apparently has a single responsibility. He must be unforunate. The lucky 24 - THIS BREAD IS MINE chance of his poverty makes A's future brighter with the pros pects of reward. What is particularly pertinent is the almost inevitable supposition in the mind of the poor or unfortunate that it is the Christian duty of others to take care of them. This' supposition could lead and most certainly has led to the concept of dependency - of some persons being perpetually inferior and thus legitimately assuming the manner and function of parasites. In the ·book of Mark, Chapter X, verses 23-26, we find these words: "And Jesus looked around about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! "And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

"And they were astonished out of measure, saying a mong themselves, Who then can be saved?"

THE NAKED PREMISE - 25 Christ removes their wonderment by assuring them that with God all things are possible and that, difficult though it may be, God can work the miracle and save the rich man if He so chooses. Clearly, in the mind of the great teacher, riches provide an obstacle to heaven. Thus, when his disciples after him intone even more vigorously against wealth, it is scarcely to be wondered at. There is, of course, the argument that Jesus was re minding his disciples that "you can't take it with you." And if this utterance can be interpreted to mean that a desire for worldly goods should not dominate the consciousness of the individual producer and entrepreneur, but rather be taken in stride, it becomes, in fact, a useful argument for the in dividualist who wants somQthing more from life than the amassment of this world's goods. But since the socialists can also employ the quotations, demonstrating that Christ believed the Lord to have an aversion to wealth to such an extent that entrance into heaven 26 - THIS BREAD IS MINE by a man of means was seriously impaired, the usefulness of the utterances in the individualist camp is seriously re stricted.

Considering the nature of life and the problems which accompany successful production, whether in a freely com petitive market place or otherwise, it becomes open to ques tion if a man can attain great wealth unless he puts his mind to it, to the exclusion of other things. And since the accumu lation of great wealth is a necessary adjunct to the procure ment of the tools of production, which fact will be discussed more fully later, a certain singleness of purpose at the financial level is mandatory or the system of individualistic capitalism is doomed. Though wealth for its own sake is scarcely com mendable, wealth as a device to further production is essential. And since by its nature, wealth that is hoarded does not increase, but wealth that is invested does, it appears that an honest desire to increase wealth is a prime essential to capital ism. Nor can such a desire be described as heinous or de structive. On the contrary, our manifold blessings in an THE NAKED PREMISE - 27 individualistic and capitalistic economy are directly traceable to this desire.

It becomes debatable, therefore, if a desire on the part of some which leads to so much benefit to others, is auto matically conducive to a detour in the route to heaven. To its credit, the modern church has been less harsh than Peter. It has extolled the virtue of voluntary giving and as a rule has stood opposed to any forceful collecting of tithings. Essentially, the Christian ethic, if we take this ancient part of it, belongs to the economic syllogism and not to the political. What appears almost miraculous is the transformation of the church from the days of its beginnings into something which at least in the Western world approximates' a success ful commercial enterprise. Though many and vigorous have been the preachments against the accumulation of wealth, both by ancient leaders and modern crusaders, the church itself has scarcely stood as an emblem of the blessed poverty it at first supported.

28 ~ THIS BREAD IS MINE Renan, in his study of the p-eat caesar, "Marc Aurele," indicates that the early Christians had followed the Essenes and agreed with that ancient Jewish sect that a prosperous man who does not share his surplus with the poor is a thief, thereby providing the foundation for Marx's later phrase, "a dollar of profit is an unpaid wage," and for ·Proudhon's dictum, "property is robbery." Emeqency Institution Economically speaking, although th, concept of universal sharing of all wealth may forever have its appeal, the prac tice is consumptive and not productive. And we can excuse our early Christian forebears· for their failure to support a sound economy, for the early church was an emergency in stitution set up to preserve the t~achings of Jes\lS until he came a second time. One has only to examine the formation of the first Christian group called Ebionim in Syria, which means "the poor,u to recognize that these early followers of Christ exTHE NAKED PREMISE - 29 pected the end 0.£ the world and that they were simply marking time until that day should come. The expectation of the end of creation doubtless spurred the idea of commu nal sharing.

It is a simple matter to conclude, if one believes in the imminent destruction of all creation, that property has little value. Read Paul. He takes no stand for human liberty, for independence, for thrift and a soundly applied economic sys tem. He warns his various ekklesia to prepare themselves for the second coming. Peter appears to be of like mind. And James reminds his hearers that the "coming of the Lord draweth nigh." Under the pressures inherent in an impinging last judg ment there would be little merit and less consistency in urging any kind of procedure that would tend to make man's lot on this planet a more pleasing and profitable one. It is not difficult to excuse the early Christians their drift toward socialism. What is more difficult is to excuse the present-day exponents of Christ who preach the same faulty economics.

30 - THIS BREAD IS MINE But it should be remembered that whatever the preach ments in the first few centuries after Christ, there was little effort to invoke compulsion. If you elected to surrender all your wealth to the church, as Peter urged, the choice was your own. The merit of the surrender lay in its voluntary nature. And here is the first lesson to be learned respecting socialism. For it has _both a relatively harmless application and a totally harmful one. The id~a of wealth-sharing, when the sharing is voluntary, is not a fundamental violation of human rights. It may fly in the face ~f reality from a stand point of sound economics. But it is scarcely an abridgment of the doctrines of individualism, so long as persuasion takes the place of compulsion. Indeed, one can almost grow misty-eyed as he thinks of those first devotees of the new gospel, sacrificing everything they had, property, customs, even wives and children, and under duress their very lives, in the supposition that the Lord-was coming for them momentarily and that whatever occurred, they would be saved.

THE NAKED PREMISE - 31 In any case, we see here the long and honorable record of socialist economic fallacy. The socialist persists in view ing man, not as an individual creature, but as a mass-man. And this is true even when the mass is Christian, and the mass-man to be considered is the total Christian community. The socialist elevates society to the moral heights. It is the g~od of the whole that matters to him. Any minority is always expendable if only the majority can gain by the sacrifice. Imagine a world in which there are no poor; in which all things are shared equally by all men according to their need. This is the dream of the socialist. We will next examine the various methods employed by socialists to bridge the gap between their dream and the realities of life.