If you’re like me, the word “socialism” carries connotations of the Soviet Union’s oppression of its people and Cold War nuclear threats. You’re aware that China’s Communist government operates a socialist market economy and that Cuba and North Korea are led by “socialist” dictators. During my frequent visits to Cuba over the years, I often saw billboards proclaiming “¡El socialism vive!” (Socialism Lives!).

Those who call themselves “Democratic Socialists” in America would decry all of that. They are adamant that they are not Communist or in favor of authoritarian dictatorships. The word “Democratic” is important to their self-understanding.

So, what is “Democratic Socialism”? What does it want to do? Why is it growing more popular in the US? And what does the Bible say about its beliefs and cultural relevance today?

What is Democratic Socialism?

As Time reports, “There isn’t one universal definition of democratic socialism.” The writer is correct: it would take many pages for me to describe in detail the various versions of this movement. We can, however, find a succinct description on the website of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA):

Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.

We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history.

We want a democracy that creates space for us all to flourish not just survive and answers the fundamental questions of our lives with the input of all. We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation. We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear. We want to win “radical” reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life.

We want a democracy empowered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control.

Succinctly stated, democratic socialism is a “diffuse political ideology that advocates for more public control over the economy and a more expansive role for government in providing social services.”

What does this mean in practice?

In essence, under democratic socialism, the majority of the population (“democratic”) controls the economy, with the means of production owned and managed by the working class (“socialism”). Here are some of the DSA’s policy positions:

Market socialism: socially owned enterprises operate in competitive markets and are self-managed by their workforce. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s community grocery stores are an example. The “NYC Groceries” website explains that the initiative “treats access to affordable food as an essential public service.”

Israel: The DSA states that it “stands for the full freedoms and self-determination of the Palestinian people including the end of Israel’s colonization and occupation of all Arab lands, equality, and the right of all refugees to return to their homes and properties.” They support efforts to boycott, divest, and sanction companies that support Israel and seek to disrupt all arms flow to it. Their position would effectively mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The “Green New Deal”: the DSA supports publicly owned, clean energy generation, storage, and transmission; expanding and fully funding public transportation as a basic right; green public spaces and facilities, such as parks and schools; and retrofitting homes and social housing to lessen their impact on the climate.

“Trans rights and bodily autonomy”: the DSA seeks to pass “pro-trans legislation locally” and through union resolutions, contract demands, and worker actions.

Work: in the DSA’s vision, “You work as much as you are able and no more than needed, and you would control your own labor and see it going to good use. It’s not just a job to pay the bills.” Here’s why:

You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities.

Accordingly, the DSA wants to shorten the workweek from forty hours to thirty-two; companies that require more would have to pay overtime. They also want to raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour, arguing that it should be a living wage to cover housing, food, and other necessities. Mayor Mamdani has accordingly called for $30 an hour by 2030 in New York City.

Health care: the DSA wants to replace the current medical system with Medicare-for-all, a single-payer government system that would eliminate most private insurance.

Taxing the rich: the DSA’s long-term aim is public ownership of the largest corporations. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a DSA member, has proposed a 70 percent marginal tax rate on income over $10 million.

Immigration: the DSE wants to end US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detentions and deportations; legalize migration; grant amnesty to all immigrants regardless of status; provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents; and end visa caps and quotas.

The military: the DSA opposes US participation in NATO and military aid in foreign conflicts, including the war with Russia. It sees military spending as serving corporate and imperialist agendas and wants to redirect such funds to health care, housing, and education. Accordingly, it wants to defund the Department of War, end all foreign wars, and close overseas military bases.

Capitalism: the DSA seeks, in the long term, to replace free-market capitalism and wants workers to “run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few.” It wants to establish public ownership (government control) of America’s largest corporations and essential industries.

The government: the DSA wants to replace the two-party system with a “multi-party democracy,” in which it expands the House of Representatives, implements proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolishes the Senate. Its platform would also abolish the Electoral College and “replace the president and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”

It would extend full voting rights to all permanent US residents, incarcerated people, and people with criminal convictions. It would establish statehood for Washington, DC, and recognize the right to self-determination for all US territories and colonies.

Why is democratic socialism growing in popularity?

In New York City, Democratic Socialists won two Democratic primaries in June, all but guaranteeing victory in November’s general election. After its Democratic primary, Washington, DC, should soon have a socialist mayor, like those in New York City and Seattle. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is widely seen as a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. And, beyond our borders, Andy Burnham, the socialist former mayor of Greater Manchester, recently became the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

The DSA announced recently that it has surpassed 120,000 members as of July 4. What explains the growing popularity of this movement?

According to a recent survey, only about half of Americans under the age of thirty believe that democracy is essential to America’s identity, compared with 81 percent of those age sixty and older. In essence, younger generations believe the current political system is not working for everyday people. Only 22 percent of Americans under the age of thirty say the American Dream still holds true.

Experts say the rise of socialism in America is definitely generational:

Many younger Americans are confronting a markedly different economic reality than previous generations. Skyrocketing housing costs, lingering student debt, widening inequality and growing pessimism about the American promise of upward mobility have fueled a broader appetite for candidates promising more sweeping economic change on both sides of the aisle.

However, a recent Marquette Law School poll found that only 30 percent of Americans ages eighteen to twenty-nine had a favorable view of the DSA, compared with 40 percent who were unfavorable. Favorability toward the DSA is even lower in older generations: 18 percent for those ages thirty to forty-four, 24 percent for those ages forty-five to fifty-nine, and 16 percent for those ages sixty and above. In a Pew survey, only a third of Democrats said they view democratic socialist leaders positively.

What does the Bible say?

Democratic Socialism can be traced to nineteenth-century utopian socialist thinkers in Great Britain, and obviously did not exist in the biblical era. However, the Bible speaks in principle, if not in precept, to every dimension of our lives. Scripture is “living and active” and just as relevant today as when it was first inspired (Hebrews 4:12). Because it is “breathed out by God,” it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17).

A complete discussion of biblical principles relevant to government, economics, and society would be a multi-volume project. For our brief purposes, I will discuss the Hebrew setting, Jesus’ teachings, and the New Testament church and practice.

The Hebrew context

The nation of Israel functioned as a theocracy under Moses’ leadership from the Exodus to its entry into the Promised Land. It was then governed by a series of judges before Saul, David, and Solomon became kings of the united kingdom. It then divided into northern and southern kingdoms prior to the north’s fall to Assyria and the south’s captivity in Babylon.

Accordingly, Old Testament teachings with regard to governance and the economy are more socialistic than American practice. For example, Moses taught the nation:

If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. I am the Lᴏʀᴅ your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God (Leviticus 25:35–38).

Socialists could cite passages like this one, but they were intended for a very different context than ours. Governments of the day were autocratic and highly centralized, as Joseph’s administration of Egyptian grain illustrates (Genesis 41–42).

The Old Testament does warn, however, that our trust must be ultimately in God rather than in human rulers: “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation” (Psalm 146:3). And it encourages hard work: “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied” (Proverbs 13:4).

And these principles were built on the foundation of the Lord’s right to demand such generosity of his people rather than on humanity’s right to receive it. Absent the first, the second loses much of its biblical backing.

Jesus’ teachings

Jesus warned against greed (Luke 12:15) and encouraged his followers to use temporary wealth for eternal purposes (Matthew 6:19–20). He taught them to care for the poor (Matthew 19:21; Luke 3:11) and to live with financial integrity (Luke 3:14). But he did not prescribe a specific economic or government system for his followers. And he encouraged wise stewardship and investment of property (Matthew 25:14–23).

The early church

We read in Acts 2: “All who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need” (vv. 44–45). And again in Acts 4:

No one said that any of the things that belonged to him were his own, but they had everything in common. . . . There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need (vv. 32, 34–35).

But note that these texts are descriptive, not prescriptive. They do not teach that all Christians or societies should be as communal as were the first Christians. Given the persecution they faced and the loss of societal support from Judaism, they were forced to serve and support each other in this fashion.

Such care for the common good is a transcendent biblical value: “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor” (1 Corinthians 10:24). We are taught, “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together” (1 Corinthians 12:26).

However, Paul also noted: “The Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages’” (1 Timothy 5:18). And James warned against financial injustice (James 5:1–6).

Ultimately, such giving was intended to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and individual believers were never meant to be compelled to give by anyone but the Lord (2 Corinthians 9:6–15). Forced generosity is not biblical generosity.

Conclusion

Neither Jesus nor the biblical writers prescribe a system of governance and economics that must be followed by all people across all times. One of the many reasons the Scriptures are abidingly relevant is that they speak to enduring principles true for all people rather than requiring a specific form of politics and finance that only some societies could follow.

But we can highlight the importance of hard work and initiative across Scripture, from Adam and Eve’s placement in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15) to Paul’s admonition, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). And we can take note of the consistent biblical warning against placing too much trust in human government. While we are to “be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1) and pray for our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1–2), our highest allegiance is to our Lord: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

In the final analysis, “kingship belongs to the Lᴏʀᴅ, and he rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:28). Let us make King David’s declaration our own: “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lᴏʀᴅ our God” (Psalm 20:7).

 

 

Denison Forum