The Golden Rule vs Socialism

It struck me as I was reading that great work of C. S. Lewis, ‘Mere Christianity’ that the Golden Rule, simply stated as, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you’, clashes head on with the Godless, Socialist Philosophy. The Golden Rule has many implications, but at least it is a statement of equality of persons. You and I will treat each other as equals; no one of us is superior to the other in the important meaning of life which is as God sees us. Socialism, on the other hand, claims to make us all equal and attempts to accomplish this goal by force and coercion. Its implementation requires the existence of a ruling class, those who are ‘above’ the rest, those who impose their dictates on the rest of us, thereby destroying the very equality they seek to generate. 

Socialism allows no personal desires or aspirations that may generate ‘inequality’. The practice of the Golden Rule allows and even celebrates differences in achievement, wealth, and talent, because these do not violate the equality of persons and therefore also allows every imaginable approach to charity and charitable acts. Under socialism, the instinct to act charitably is suppressed as the rulers confiscate private property and distribute it according to a predetermined formula, for the good of the people of course.

The Founders understood the true meaning of the Golden Rule. They knew that only an honorable and just people could be free. Freedom, including the right to private property, is essential to the full and unimpeded practice of charity. Our country operated in this way for many years. The poor were fed, clothed, and housed by those who were blessed with more, usually through the churches or other charitable organizations, the true path to equality by Americans living the Golden Rule. Then it all began to change, and clearly for the worse. 

The detrimental results of the so-called ‘War on Poverty’, an attempt of a socialist oriented approach to ‘help’ poor black families is just one example of seriously misguided policies. The ‘War on Poverty’ turned out instead to be a war on the black family, decimating its integrity and leading to an illegitimacy rate of nearly 70% and an abortion rate for Black women nearly three times that of whites. Even well intentioned programs of this nature almost always have awful unintended consequences. The targeted population ends up dependent and isolated. They are told over and over again that the wealthier have exploited them and stolen their rightful access to this wealth, and it is fully just and proper to confiscate it because they obtained it through immoral action.

The rejection of socialism is clearly stated in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Centesimus Annus" which says, in part:

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the social-assistance state leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.
The welfare state is, of course, our limited version of socialism. Here are John Paul's observations about socialism:
Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socioeconomic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good and evil.

In other words socialism sees people as problems to be solved rather than persons to be loved and cherished as under the Golden Rule. Socialism causes great harm and in the end causes untold misery and is destined to fail. 

Contrast this to the truly charitable distribution of goods that, in addition to satisfying the material needs of the less fortunate, takes a personal interest the people being served and their spiritual welfare. The Golden Rule when rightly practiced encompasses all that is good in man. It lifts up those in need, serves their spiritual and well as their material needs, and invites them to be part of a loving community. Is this not the kind of community Christ calls us to nurture? Are not all the principles contained in the beatitudes inherently a part of the Golden Rule? The challenge is to reawaken ourselves and the Nation to the true meaning of freedom and charity, to reject the imposition of imposed practices that waste the wealth of the nation to the detriment of everyone.