The Naked Communist (52 page)

All this was turned topsy-turvy when the Government thought it would be "socially desirable" to peg potato prices.

It not only turned out to be unnatural but also impractical.

This brings us to our final comment on free enterprise.

Failure of an American Experiment with Socialism

One of the most impressive modern documents on American free enterprise in action is a dynamic little book by Ezra Taft Benson, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, entitled, Farmers at the Cross Roads. It verities with facts and figures the lesson our generation has learned from an experiment with Socialism through Government control of agriculture.

The Government attempted to control farm prices by direct control of farm practices. The so-called "basic crops" which were put under controls were wheat, cotton, corn, rice, tobacco and peanuts. The idea was to protect the farmer by guaranteeing him a certain minimum price. To do this it was necessary to control production. Farmers were therefore restricted as to the amount of acreage they could plant.

The results were amazing. Take wheat for example. More than 30 million acres were taken out of wheat production in an attempt to reduce the supply and thereby maintain a good price for wheat. Each wheat farmer received a Government check which paid him for
not
planting wheat on a certain percentage of his land. This is what happened:

The farmer used the money to buy better machinery, more fertilizer and additional help so that frequently he harvested as much or more wheat from his limited acreage than he had previously raised on his entire farm. In other words, curtailed acreage did not curtail production.

Furthermore, land taken out of wheat production could be used to raise other crops which resulted in an over-supply of feed grains. Feed grain prices went so low that farmers and ranchers were able to greatly increase their cattle and hog production. This pulled the rug out from under meat prices. The government tried to save the situation by purchasing large quantities of each product which was being overproduced, This, coupled with price supports, encouraged even more people to invest in farming with the result that vast areas of sub-marginal land were opened up for production. Many of these investors were not farmers at all, and these made a loud noise in favor of higher supports when they could not make their inefficiently operated farms pay off.

The Government's support of artificial high prices also had another destructive influence. It encouraged customers to look around for substitute products or foreign imports. As a result, American farmers not only lost some of their domestic markets, but found they were unable to compete abroad.

What happened to wheat also happened to cotton and the other "basic crops." They lost markets everywhere. In the case of cotton the government reduced acreage from 43 million acres to 17.4 million. Still the surplus quantities continued to climb. Before controls, U.S. cotton farmers exported 7 million bales of cotton per year. During 1955 they sold only 2 million bales abroad. Foreign cotton growers saw what was happening and doubled their sales because U.S. cotton brokers could not compete. So it was with all controlled areas of U.S. agriculture.

In contrast to this, we find that those areas of agriculture which resisted rigid price guarantees did better. Take soybean farming as an example. These producers used the Department of Agriculture to advise and counsel them but not to control. The Department of Agriculture conducted numerous experiments to reveal new uses for soybeans and encouraged producers to use cooperative associations for the exploring of new markets. Today, soybean farmers supply half the tonnage for high protein feeds -- twice as much as that which comes from cottonseed meal. Soybeans have risen to fifth place as the farmer's greatest source of farm income.

Secretary Benson closes with this significant comment: "A major difference between cotton and soybeans is the fact that cotton decided to fight its battles in the legislative halls, while soybeans decided to fight in the market place." These are merely a few highlights from the lessons which America should have learned during the past twenty-five years of experimentation with socialized agriculture. There are many things which the Government can do to encourage the "general welfare" of all agriculture as it did with soybeans, but to try to control prices by Washington edicts rather than by supply and demand in the market place proves to be the kiss of death for the handsome goose that lays the golden eggs of American free enterprise prosperity.

It is time to sell ourselves on our own economic program so we can more effectively share it with the rest of the world. We have a great system which is operating with demonstrable efficiency. Here is a summary of what it is doing:

1. Capitalism is by far the best known system to provide for the physical needs of man.

2. Capitalism permits man to satisfy his spiritual needs.

3. Capitalism allows for variation as between individuals.

4. Capitalism is naturally self-expanding which tends to create strong economic ties between communities, states and nations.

5. Capitalism can permit everyone to participate in making a profit, thereby eliminating classes or castes which are inherent in so many other types of economies.

6. Capitalism promotes the "freedom to try."

7. Capitalism allows the "freedom to sell."

8. Capitalism allows the "freedom to buy."

9. Capitalism preserves the greatest single force of human motivation -- the risk of failing.

10. Capitalism tends to increase the wages of workers in relation to prices.

11. Capitalism tends to reduce the hours of work necessary to make a living.

12. Capitalism increases the workers' share of the national income.

13. Capitalism increases the number of jobs faster than the growth of population.

14. Capitalism promotes rapid technological advances.

15. Capitalism is proving to be the most effective means mankind has yet discovered for "sharing the wealth."

A few students have secretly or even openly defended Communism because they considered it to be an important set of principles practiced by the early Christians. Such persons often say that they definitely do not condone the ruthlessness of Communism as presently practiced in Russia, but that they do consider it to be of Christian origin and morally sound when practiced on a "brotherhood basis."

This was exactly the attitude of the Pilgrim Fathers when they undertook to practice Communism immediately after their arrival in the New World. But as we have seen earlier, not only did the project fail miserably, but it was typical of hundreds of other attempts to make Communism work on a "brotherhood basis." Without exception all of them failed. One cannot help wondering why.

Certain scholars feel they have verified what Governor Bradford has said concerning "brotherhood Communism," namely, that it is un-Christian and immoral because it strikes at the very roots of human liberty. Communism -- even on a brotherhood basis can only be set up under a dictatorship administered within the framework of force or fear. Governor Bradford found this to be true. Leaders own literally hundreds of similar experiments concur. Students are therefore returning to ancient texts with this question: "Did the early Christians really practice Communism?"

The belief that the early Christians may have practiced Communism is based on two passages. Here is the first one:

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men as every man had need."
¹

Two things might be noted here. First, the people formed a community effort by coming together; second, they sold their possessions and goods as they appeared to need cash proceeds for the assistance of their fellow members. It does not say that they sold all their possessions and goods although it is granted that at first reading this may be inferred. Neither does it say that they pooled their resources in a common fund although this has been assumed from the statement that they "had all things common."

What they actually did is more clearly stated in the second passage which is often quoted:

"And the multitude of them that believed was 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."
²

Here we have a declaration indicating that the common effort was not a legal pooling of resources in a communal fund but rather a feeling of unity in dealing with common problems so that no man "said" his possessions were his own but developed and used them in such a way that they would fill the needs of the group as well as himself.

That this is a correct reading of this passage may be verified by events which are described in the next chapter of Acts. There we read of Ananias and Sapphira. They had a piece of property which they decided to sell. They intended to give the proceeds to the Apostle Peter. But the author of Acts says that when they had sold the property they decided to hold back some of the proceeds even though they represented to Peter that their contribution was the entire value of the property received at the sale. For this deceit Peter severely criticized them and then, in the process, he explained the legal relationship existing between these two people and their property. Said he, "While it (the property) remained,
was it not thine own
? and after it was sold,
was it (the money) not in thine power
?"
³

In other words, this property had never been required for any communal fund. It belonged to Ananias and Sapphira. It was completely in their power. After the property was sold the money they received from the sale was also in their power. They could spend it or contribute it. If contributed, the money was a freewill, voluntary offering. It will be seen immediately that this is altogether different from a Communist's relationship to property where there is a confiscation or expropriation of each member's possessions, and the proceeds are distributed by a single person or a small committee. The member thereby loses his independence and becomes subservient to the whims and capriciousness of those who rule over him.

It would appear, therefore, that the early Christians did keep legal title to their property but "said" it was for the benefit of the whole community.

This is precisely the conclusion reached in Dummelow's
Bible Commentary
. It discusses the two passages we have just quoted and then says: "The Church of Jerusalem recognized the principle of private property. A disciple's property really was his own, but he did not say it was his own; he treated it as if it were common property."

Dr. Adam Clarke's commentary also makes this significant observation concerning the Apostolic collections for the poor: "If there has been a
community of goods
in the Church, there could have been no ground for such (collections) ... as there could have been no such distinction as
rich
and
poor
, if every one, on entering the Church, gave up his goods to a common stock."

This, then, brings us to our final comment on this subject, namely, that the Master Teacher made it very clear in one of his parables
⁴
that property was not to be owned in common nor in equal quantities.

In this parable he said the members of the Kingdom of God were as servants who had been given various stewardships "every man according to his several ability." One man was given a stewardship of five talents of silver and when he "traded with the same and made them other five talents," his Lord said, "Well done!" However, another servant who had been given only one talent of silver feared he might somehow lose it, so he buried it in the earth. To this man his Lord said, "Thou wicked and slothful servant!" He then took this man's one talent and gave it to the first servant where it could be developed profitably.

Two things appear very clear in this Parable of the Talents: first that every man was to enjoy his own private property as a stewardship from God. Second, that he was responsible to the earth's Creator for the profitable use of his property.

All of the evidence before us seems to clearly show that the early Christians did not practice Communism. They did not have their
property
in common. Instead, they had their
problems
in common. To solve their problems, each man was asked to voluntarily contribute according to his ability "as God had prospered him."
⁵